The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society 0203866207, 0415425247, 9780415425247, 9780203866207

Citation preview

TH E E U N U C H I N B YZ ANT I NE H I S TO RY A N D S OCI E T Y

The existence of eunuchs was one of the defining features of the Byzantine Empire. Covering the whole span of the history of the empire, from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries AD, Shaun Tougher presents a comprehensive survey of the history and roles of eunuchs, making use of extensive comparative material, such as from China, Persia and the Ottoman Empire, as well as about castrato singers of the eighteenth century of Enlightenment Europe, and self-castrating religious devotees such as the Galli of ancient Rome, early Christians, the Skoptsy of Russia and the Hijras of India. The various roles played by eunuchs are examined. They are not just found as servile attendants; some were powerful political players – such as Chrysaphius who plotted to assassinate Attila the Hun – and others were prominent figures in Orthodoxy as bishops and monks. Furthermore, there is offered an analysis of how society thought about eunuchs, especially their gender identity - were they perceived as men, women, or a third sex? The broad survey of the political and social position of eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire is placed in the context of the history of the eunuch in general. An appendix listing key eunuchs of the Byzantine Empire is included, and the text is fully illustrated. This book will be a major contribution to the study of the subject, of interest also to the non-specialist. Shaun Tougher is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History in the Cardiff School of History and Archaeology at Cardiff University, and has also taught at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of St Andrews. He specializes in late Roman and Byzantine history. He is the author of The Reign of Leo VI (866–912) (1997) and Julian the Apostate (2007), and is the editor of Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond (2002).

T H E E U N U CH IN BY Z A N T I N E HIS TO RY A N D S O CIE T Y

Shaun Tougher

First published 2008 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2008 Shaun Tougher All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 0-203-86620-7 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0–415–42524–7 (hbk) ISBN13: 978–0–415–42524–7 (hbk)

F O R DA D , WH O WA N T E D MORE PI CTURES

CONTENTS

Plates Preface Abbreviations Map Introduction 1 The eunuch in history: From antiquity to the twenty-first century

viii ix x xii 1 7

2 Approaching eunuchs: Attitudes, studies and problems

14

3 Castration

26

4 The court eunuchs of the later Roman empire

36

5 Transformations: Byzantine court eunuchs, seventh to eleventh centuries AD

54

6 Eunuchs and religion

68

7 Images and identities of eunuchs

96

8 The twilight of the Byzantine eunuch

119

Conclusion

128

Appendix 1: List of late Roman and Byzantine emperors Appendix 2:Select prosopography of late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs Notes Bibliography Index

131 133 172 209 229

PLATES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Relief of the Assyrian royal court Relief of a beardless figure, Persepolis Theodora panel, San Vitale, Ravenna Mosaic of archangel Gabriel Mosaic of Ignatios the Younger Emperor with courtiers Emperor with John Chrysostom, archangel Michael and the grapheus Emperor with Sabas the monk Illustration of the chief black eunuch of the Ottoman empire Engraving showing probably Gaetano Berenstadt, Francesca Cuzzoni Sandoni and Francesco Bernardi (‘Senesino’) Portrait group: The singer Farinelli and friends Portrait of Rauzzini with his dog Turk Photograph of palace eunuchs of China Leo the sakellarios presents the Bible to the Theotokos St Nicholas with abbot Makar and Constantine the protospatharios

viii

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 92 93 93 94 95

P REFACE

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge here the two major contributors to the completion of this project on Byzantine eunuchs. Without the granting of a Research Leave Award by the Arts and Humanities Research Council no doubt I would still be trying to snatch moments between the twin duties of administration and teaching (the latter rather more pleasurable) in an attempt to complete the book. I am eternally grateful to the AHRC for the opportunity to break the back of the work. My other main debt is to Richard Stoneman, who was immediately enthusiastic about the project. His support and belief were invaluable, and much appreciated. Eunuchs have been a research interest of mine ever since studying for my PhD on the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (886–912), who had a marked interest in eunuchs himself. Over the course of my career in the Celtic world (Belfast, St Andrews and Cardiff) a great many people have assisted me in my enthusiasm, too many to acknowledge them all individually here. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to recognise some particular supporters. As ever, Shelley Hales, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, Janett Morgan and Nicholas Baker-Brian, have been on hand to assist, encourage and console. Margaret Mullett, Paul Magdalino and Ruth Macrides, established mentors, continued in this role. Anton Powell provided much valued belief. Bente Bjornholt, Liz James, Katherine Lewis and Mary Harlow consistently proffered information and stimulation. Leslie Brubaker and Jane Potter furnished assistance with photographs. Pamela Armstrong and Dirk Krausmuller contributed vital last minute assistance. On a more personal note, William Kay has kept me going throughout the project, showed interest (even though it wasn’t about the eighteenth century), and attempted to help me with English. Finally, I would like to thank Rufus and Russell for adding immeasurably to the pleasure of life.

ix

ABBREVIATI ONS

AASS AB B BF BS BZ CQ DOP EO GRBS Hell Hist IRAIK JRS ODB PBE PBW PG PL PLP PLRE PMBZ

REB TM VC ZPE

Acta Sanctorum Analecta Bollandiana Byzantion Byzantinische Forschungen Byzantinoslavica Byzantinische Zeitschrift Classical Quarterly Dumbarton Oaks Papers Échos d’Orient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Hellenika Historia Izvestiia Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole Journal of Roman Studies The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan et al., 3 vols, New York and Oxford, 1991 Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire 1 (641–867), ed. J.R. Martindale, electronic resource, 2001 Prosopography of the Byzantine World, 1025–1102, http://www.pbw. kcl.ac.uk/, 2006.2 Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne Patrologia Latina, ed. J.P. Migne Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp, 12 vols, Vienna, 1976–1996 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. J.R. Martindale et al., 3 vols, Cambridge, 1971–1992 Prosopographie der mittel-byzantinischen Zeit: Erste Abteilung (641–867), ed. R.-J. Lilie et al., 6 vols, Berlin and New York, 1999–2002 Revue des études byzantines Travaux et mémoires Vigiliae Christianae Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik x

A note on transliteration In general, I have attempted to use Latin forms for names and terms for the period of the later Roman/early Byzantine empire (fourth to sixth centuries AD), but Greek forms for the rest of the history of the empire. There are some exceptions with the spelling of names for the period from the seventh to the fifteenth centuries, as sometimes I find a Latinised form simply more comfortable (e.g. Heraclius, Leo, Nicholas, Isaac and Theophylact).

xi

Trier Verdun

Rhi

Ravenna

Venice

Carthage

Milan

ne

Benevento

SICILY

Naples

Rome

Pliska

Black Sea Trebizond ARMENIA

ABASGIA

Map of principal cities mentioned in the text

CRETE

Alexandria

CYPRUS

Gaza

Jerusalem

Damascus

Sinope NIA Mantzikert MOUNT OLYMPOS O AG Amasia L Naissus Tig Heraclea PH ris Melitene PA Nicomedia Constantinople Caesarea Nicaea MOUNT ATHOS Edessa Ochrid Kyzikos Euphrate Amorion Aleppo s Thessalonike Bari Pergamum Taranto Tarsus Antioch LESBOS Sardis Chonae Ephesus Attaleia CHIOS Miletos Athens

Syracuse

Danube

INTRODUCTI ON

The fascination of eunuchs Eunuchs have been a source of fascination for centuries, if not millennia. One only has to consider the reaction in Britain to the discovery of the skeleton of a ‘eunuch’ on the site of late Roman Catterick in north Yorkshire to appreciate the effect that the idea of a castrated male can have on a modern audience. In a brilliant piece of PR to launch the publication of their report in 2002 on the excavations at Catterick, which had been ongoing since 1958, archaeologists chose to highlight the discovery of the skeleton of a young man who had been buried at Bainesse near Catterick wearing several items of jewellery: a jet necklace and bracelets, and an expanding anklet. They suggested that this unusual instance could be explained by the fact that the man was a gallus, one of the cross-dressing selfcastrating devotees of the eastern mother goddess Cybele.1 The British press, from The Daily Mail to The Guardian, had a field day. Television also got in on the act; an item on the supposed Yorkshire transvestite, and eunuchs in general, was featured on Channel 4’s Richard and Judy. It is clear, then, that eunuchs capture the imagination. The reaction to the Catterick ‘eunuch’ is indicative of a wider interest in the subject. Many artists, for instance, have been drawn to the figure of the eunuch. Several authors have chosen to make eunuchs the heroes of their novels. Probably the most widely known case is that of Mary Renault’s The Persian Boy, which narrates the life of the famous Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great from the point of view of his lover the eunuch Bagoas, the Persian boy of the title.2 Also worthy of note is Anne Rice’s Cry to Heaven, whose hero Tonio is one of the famous castrati singers of the eighteenth century.3 Byzantine eunuchs have also been the subject of fiction. John the grand chamberlain of the emperor Justinian I (527–565) is a creation of Mary Reed and Eric Mayer; he features in a series of detective novels.4 Christopher Harris’s Memoirs of a Byzantine Eunuch recounts the life of Zeno, who found himself embroiled in court politics in ninthcentury Constantinople.5 Paul Adam wrote an historical novel about the Byzantine empress Eirene (797–802), but chose to title his book Irène et les eunuques, an acknowledgement of the significant part that eunuchs played in her reign.6 Eunuchs, however, have had a much longer history in fiction beyond these examples from 1

I NTRODUCTI ON

the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For instance Honoré de Balzac’s novella Sarrasine (1830) featured the castrato La Zambinella, while William Beckford’s Vathek (1787) included the character of Bababalouk, the chief eunuch of the eponymous caliph.7 Eunuchs have also appeared as characters in cinema and on the stage. Gérard Corbiau’s film Farinelli, Il Castrato was released in 1994, and documented the life and career of one the most famous and successful castrati singers of the eighteenth century. In Sridhar Rangayan’s The Pink Mirror (Gulabi Aaina) two of the main characters were Indian hijras, the infamous cross-dressing self-castrating men who usually live in distinct communities and are traditionally associated with the Hindu mother goddess Bahuchara Mata. The film, released in 2003, explored the issue of homosexuality, and was banned in India itself. The eunuch Bagoas, made famous by Mary Renault, also appears in Oliver Stone’s Alexander (2004). Castrati singers and hijras have been portrayed on the stage too. Castradiva, written by Mark Ryan, had its world premiere in 2000 at Theatr Mwldan, Cardigan, Wales, and focused on a fictional eighteenth-century castrato, Pedrolino il Magnifico.8 The Bollywood musical Bombay Dreams, which was produced by Andrew Lloyd Webber and opened in London in 2002, featured among its characters a hijra named Sweetie. As with literary fiction, there is a much longer history of the depiction of eunuchs on the stage. For instance, in the early seventeenth century, William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra includes the character of Mardian, one of Cleopatra’s trusted entourage,9 while William Wycherley’s The Country Wife (1676) centres around the conceit of a man called Mr Horner pretending to be a eunuch in order to pursue his career of seduction, recalling the ancient Roman play The Eunuch by Terence.10 Another medium in which eunuchs have been depicted is the visual arts. Eunuchs are particularly prominent in orientalist paintings of eastern life, especially the institution of the harem, famous nineteenth-century examples being works by Ingres and Gérôme.11 All of these examples beg the question, what is it about eunuchs that accounts for the interest in them? The obvious answer is that eunuchs are inherently interesting given that they are physically altered humans. Most eunuchs would have resulted from the castration of prepubertal boys, though castration could also occur after puberty. Essentially, the condition of the eunuch is beyond the experience of most humans and is thus a matter of curiosity. There are, however, other factors which can contribute to the attraction they exert. Eunuchs can be understood as a phenomenon of the past, which can only be recreated through imagination. Those who live in the West today often perceive eunuchs as an aspect of eastern culture, and thus beyond even any direct historical connection. Such attitudes should of course be qualified, since eunuchs are not just a feature of the ancient world, but have survived into the modern era, into the early twentieth century in the cases of the court eunuchs of the Ottoman and Chinese empires. Moreover, the castrati singers who attained the peak of their popularity in the eighteenth century did have careers in western Europe, and several lived in Britain. The British interest in the Catterick ‘eunuch’ was surely intensified by the fact that he brought a foreign subject closer to home. Notably the Leader of The Guardian made much play on 2

I NTRODUCTI ON

the idea of the eunuch being a Yorkshireman.12 It should also be appreciated that eunuchs are not just confined even to the recent past: they still exist today. This fact may surprise some, and thus account for further interest in the topic. For instance, the Western media seems particularly preoccupied with, not to say anxious about, the existence of the hijras in India. Articles on this group are certainly a regular feature in the British press.13 In addition, the fact that contemporary Westerners still want to castrate themselves, for a variety of reasons, has prompted several documentaries in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. There is no doubt that shock and sensationalism can amplify the interest in eunuchs. Associated with the issue of the physical condition of eunuchs is the question of gender identity, and this is vital in explaining their fascination. Are eunuchs male, female, or something else? More important than the answer to this puzzle is the fact that eunuchs can serve to destabilise notions of sex and gender. What do the terms male and female, and masculine and feminine, signify? Eunuchs point to a more complex reality beyond the simple straitjacket of these polarised models, as the modern appreciation of the category of Intersex illustrates. Eunuchs provide an alternative perspective to that of heterosexual orthodoxy. Some find this challenging, if not downright alarming. It is notable that press articles on the hijras can adopt a mocking tone, and the Catterick ‘eunuch’ brought forth some camp humour from the papers.14 Conversely, however, individuals can make personal connections with the figure of the eunuch, and even derive comfort from it. In 2007 Richard Wassersug, a professor of anatomy and neurobiology who had to undergo chemical castration for the treatment of prostate cancer, wrote an article in The New York Times asserting that he was a eunuch and that the reality of historical eunuchs had provided positive role models for him.15 Of course eunuchs can prove a concern simply on academic grounds. It is clear, for instance, that the interest in the ‘authentic’ performance of baroque music, which has occurred from the late twentieth century onwards, has led to an increasing curiosity about the castrati singers and the quality of their voice. The Handel House Museum in London staged an exhibition in 2006 on Handel and the castrati. Countertenors such as Michael Chance and Andreas Scholl now dominate the market in performing parts that had been created for castrati centuries earlier.16 In 2006 BBC4 broadcast a documentary entitled Castrato – In Search of a Lost Voice, which explored the possibility of recreating the castrato sound. Thus a range of factors may contribute to an interest in eunuchs, but the essential factor is curiosity about the curious.

Byzantine eunuchs The group of eunuchs that this book is particularly concerned with are those of the Byzantine empire. This empire was the heir of Rome in the east, centred on the ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which had been refounded as Constantinople in 324 by the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine the Great (306–337). For many, the advent of Constantine and the foundation of Constantinople mark the beginning of the history of the Byzantine empire, which was to survive until the 3

I NTRODUCTI ON

fall of the city to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. One of the characteristic features of the Byzantine empire was the existence of eunuchs within it, particularly in the role of servants and officials of the imperial court. This aspect of Byzantine culture has long been recognised, witness for instance the Irish historian William Lecky’s jaundiced verdict of 1869 that ‘The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude’.17 The twentieth century finally witnessed an attempt to get beyond such negative stereotypical views of Byzantium, which had a prolonged history in the West. One of the great British godfathers of Byzantine Studies, Sir Steven Runciman (1903–2000), remarked in 1929 that the ‘significance [of eunuchs in Byzantium] has never . . . been properly realized’.18 Only a few years before this, however, an interest in the institutional history of Byzantium had brought the spotlight to fall upon eunuchs. James Dunlap’s study of the office of the grand chamberlain, which was usually held by a eunuch, was published in 1924.19 Institutional history was also the focus of the work of Rodolphe Guilland, who from 1943 onwards published a series of articles about the offices and titles held by eunuchs at the Byzantine court.20 In the 1960s attention remained fixed on court eunuchs in Keith Hopkins’ groundbreaking attempt to understand why it was that eunuchs became such a prominent feature of the imperial court from the fourth century onwards, though he took a sociological approach rather than just an institutional one.21 From the late twentieth century onwards it was the gender identity of Byzantine eunuchs which was foregrounded, as seen in a series of articles and finally a book (the first ever monograph on Byzantine eunuchs) by Kathryn Ringrose.22 Clearly, this once again reflected the academic trends of the time, with the development of the field of gender studies. The present book builds on the previous work concerning Byzantine eunuchs but has several distinctive features of its own. It covers the entire history of the Byzantine empire, from the fourth to the fifteenth century AD. This period was covered only summarily by Guilland’s initial article surveying eunuchs throughout the span of Byzantium’s existence, while Ringrose’s monograph on Byzantine eunuchs restricted itself to the period from the seventh to the eleventh century.23 Earlier studies have also tended to focus on singular aspects of the eunuchs of Byzantium, such as their roles at court or the question of their gender identity. This book instead embraces a more general and diverse examination. It is concerned with the court role, which was after all the main reason for the consumption of eunuchs in the empire, but in addition it considers other roles, especially religious, though educational and musical roles are also touched upon. Further, it examines the social status of eunuchs, the social attitudes surrounding them, and the self-perception of Byzantine eunuchs. The book also emphasises the issue of transformations in the history of Byzantine eunuchs over time. It is well known to Byzantinists that the prominence and power of eunuchs declined in the late empire, roughly from the twelfth century onwards, but it is important to appreciate too that there were great changes in the nature of eunuchs in the empire between the early and middle periods (that is between the fourth to sixth century and the seventh to twelfth century), the pivotal point being the sixth and seventh centuries. 4

I NTRODUCTI ON

The issue of the ethnic origin of eunuchs is particularly significant here, and has been a concern of my work already, though Spyros Stavrakas had begun to point the way in 1978.24 The book is especially interested in the reality of the eunuch: it is concerned with those who were castrated either voluntarily or involuntarily, and the lives they led. It is not a history of castration, or an exploration of the idea of the eunuch, though these topics necessarily receive treatment as aspects of the study. The major distinctive feature of the book, however, is its interest in the history of eunuchs in general. This was not the case with Ringrose’s monograph, and it has been observed that her book was the poorer for this ‘contextual vacuum’.25 It is certainly helpful to understand the history of eunuchs prior to Byzantium, especially of those of the Mediterranean world. Byzantium was the heir both to preexisting traditions and pre-existing attitudes. More than this, however, knowledge of the history of eunuchs in other times and places, including beyond the temporal existence of Byzantium itself, facilitates the adoption of a comparative approach to the subject. The book argues that this is a legitimate methodology, and that it is helpful in illuminating the specific case of Byzantine eunuchs. Other historians have already deployed the technique in relation to eunuchs, to varying degrees.26 The comparative approach assists in the identification of common features of the history of eunuchs, such as the recurring roles they played, but also indicates the variations that exist at specific times and in specific cultures. Given that evidence for the history of eunuchs can be lacking, any approach which may cast some light on the subject is valuable. Finally, it is important to make clear that it is not the aim of this book to be the last word on Byzantine eunuchs. That would be an immense task. Rather, the objective is to provide a general context in which to understand the history of Byzantine eunuchs, and to delineate and explore some particular aspects of their existence across the span of the empire’s life. To achieve the aims described above, the book has been organised in the following way. Chapter 1 provides a brief account of eunuchs in world history, from the earliest testimony up to the early twenty-first century. It details the roles that they played (or continue to play) and the cultures where they have been found (or continue to be found). The aim of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the expanse of eunuch history, to illustrate how prevalent the eunuch has been in human history, and to demonstrate that the subject is still of relevance. The chapter also serves to inform the comparisons that are developed in the subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 nuances the picture established in the first chapter, as it reviews the previous study of eunuchs, and establishes the methodological problems inherent in researching their history. In particular the problems of orientalism, terminology, and the lack of a eunuch voice are discussed. Castration, the sine qua non for eunuchs, is the subject of Chapter 3. This focuses on the reasons for castration, its varying degrees and procedures, as well as its physical and ideological consequences. With Chapter 4 Byzantine eunuchs come to the fore of the book. The chapter traces the emergence of the court eunuch as a key characteristic of the later Roman and early Byzantine empires, and explores the theories propounded to explain this development. Although Hopkins attempted to provide a solution, the answer remains very much debated.27 The focus remains on court eunuchs 5

I NTRODUCTI ON

in Chapter 5, but is concerned with those of the middle Byzantine empire, from the seventh to the eleventh centuries. It considers how the character of the later Roman and early Byzantine court eunuchs altered in the early medieval period, such as their changing origins and the creation of specialised offices and titles for them. Of particular importance in the analysis is a late ninth-century document called the Kletorologion, which was composed at court by an official named Philotheos to detail the hierarchy of Byzantine officials and provide guidance on who should be invited to feasts and where they should sit.28 A consequence of this text is that there exists a remarkable snapshot of the role and position of eunuchs within Byzantine society. In Chapter 6 the spotlight falls on religion, for eunuchs were not just court officials in the Byzantine empire, but could also have careers as clerics and monks. This is illustrated by the chapter, but in addition it highlights the ambivalence Byzantine society felt about eunuchs in religious positions, for they could be perceived as both pure and corrupt beings. This tension in social views of eunuchs is more fully explored in Chapter 7, which focuses on the images and identities of Byzantine eunuchs. The chapter includes discussion of the gender identity of eunuchs, which has been such a particular concern of the work of Ringrose, who has argued that in the middle Byzantine period eunuchs were constructed positively as a third gender. A very interesting and unusual text has been central in Ringrose’s arguments: the so-called In Defence of Eunuchs, written in the twelfth century by the Byzantine bishop Theophylact of Ochrid to comfort his brother, who was a eunuch.29 The chapter suggests, however, that conceptions of the gender identity of eunuchs in Byzantium remained much more fluid. It also explores the possibility of accessing what Byzantine eunuchs thought about themselves. Chapter 8, the last chapter, returns the focus to court eunuchs, and investigates their apparent decline in prominence and power in the late empire. As with the rise of eunuchs, their fall remains subject to debate. A final conclusion reflects on the aims, nature and key concerns of the book, and considers the possibilities for further research. In addition to the main chapters, the book includes in an appendix a selective prosopography of late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs. It is clear that Ringrose herself had compiled details of about 200 Byzantine eunuchs, but this resource was not appended to her monograph.30 It is hoped that such an appendix in this volume will go some way to filling this gap, as well as augmenting the overall aims of the study and facilitating future research on the eunuchs of the Byzantine empire.

6

1 T HE EUNUCH IN HI STORY From antiquity to the twenty-first century

Introduction This book is primarily concerned with the eunuchs of the Byzantine empire (which spanned the fourth to fifteenth centuries AD). Eunuchs, however, are not a phenomenon restricted to this civilisation; they are found throughout history from antiquity up to the present day.1 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief history of the eunuch, establishing in what cultures they have been found and also what roles they have played. The complexities of the source material and the debates about its interpretation will largely be ignored for the sake of supplying a digestible overview, but will necessarily be explored in subsequent chapters (especially Chapter 2). The initial analysis of this chapter will provide both a context in which to place Byzantine eunuchs and basic information from which comparisons can be developed. It will also serve the purpose of demonstrating how prevalent and persistent the existence of the eunuch has been throughout human history.

From antiquity to the twenty-first century AD The origins of the deliberate castration of males for the purpose of the creation of eunuchs are unknown. However, both ancients and moderns have been tempted to hypothesise. Modern historians can suggest a transfer of the practice of castration from the field of animal husbandry, or a development from the use of castration simply as a form of punishment.2 As for ancient opinions, the classical Greek historian Hellanicus attributed the creation of eunuchs to the eastern queen Atossa (Persian or Assyrian),3 whilst in the later Roman period it was asserted that eunuchs were first produced by the Assyrian queen Semiramis.4 It is tempting of course to speculate about the origins of eunuchs, but it is more worthwhile to consider firmer evidence for early eunuchs. Eunuchs are first encountered in the east, the region with which they are forever associated in the popular imagination. It seems that it was not a single eastern culture that initiated the use of eunuchs, for it is a characteristic of both near eastern and far eastern civilisations concurrently: specifically, Assyrian and Chinese. In the case of the former it has been argued that eunuchs were a notable feature of this civilisation (1800–610 BC) and in fact 7

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

that Assyria created the institution of the eunuch for the Mediterranean world.5 As with so many of the other civilisations where eunuchs are found, the court was their main environment. Eunuchs are found amongst the royal personnel in both the ‘inner court’ and the ‘outer court’, in roles ranging from personal attendants to leading administrative and military officers. They could be found as servants in private homes too, and they could also exist in the professions. In China, the earliest evidence dates to the Shang dynasty (traditionally dated 1766–1122 BC).6 However imperial China outlasted the Assyrian empire, enduring until the early twentieth century. Eunuchs were still encountered in the Chinese court under the last emperor of the Qing dynasty (AD 1644–1911), Henry Puyi (immortalised in Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1987 film The Last Emperor). The death in 1996 of Sun Yaoting, ‘China’s last eunuch’, was cause for comment in the western press.7 The extensive history of imperial China provides us with a much richer source of information compared to the case of Assyria. Although the number and significance of eunuchs could vary over time (for instance a decline in the prominence of eunuchs occurred under the Qing dynasty) in general they were a central feature of the Chinese court. They could play a bewildering diversity of roles, from humble court personnel to key administrators to virtual rulers of the empire. They could operate both within the restricted imperial space (most famously in the Forbidden City at Beijing, which was actually designed by a eunuch and built in the early fifteenth century AD) and beyond it as imperial agents, such as diplomats and commanders (notably under the Ming dynasty, AD 1368–1644). A famous example of the latter is the admiral Zheng He, who in the first half of the fifteenth century AD led seven expeditions, sailing as far as Africa.8 The last powerful eunuch however, was Li Lianying, hairdresser to the empress dowager Cixi (1861–1908). The extent to which other near eastern civilisations contemporary with Assyria (e.g. Egyptian, Hittite, Urartian, Babylonian) used eunuchs is a matter for debate.9 There is more certainty when one comes to the Persian empire under the Achaemenid dynasty.10 The Achaemenid empire was established in the sixth century BC by Cyrus the Great (559–530 BC), and became the largest empire the world had yet seen, conquering Media, Lydia and Egypt, and attempting to conquer Greece. Indeed the Greeks are key witnesses to the role of eunuchs in the Persian empire: they are referred to for instance by Herodotus, Xenophon and Ctesias. From such sources the place of the eunuch at the Persian court emerges. Eunuchs were a desired feature of the court, where they are found as personal attendants, trusted agents and influential individuals. While the Greeks were familiar with the concept and practice of castration, as well as the existence of the eunuch in the Persian empire, they were not themselves leading consumers of eunuchs.11 It is possible that eunuchs found their way to Greece as booty taken in the Persian wars, especially after the invasion of Xerxes in 480–479 BC,12 and the wealthy Athenian Callias is depicted as having a eunuch door-keeper before the Peloponnesian war,13 but these cases appear to be exceptional. Greeks may however have exploited the eastern demand for eunuchs: as part of his vivid tale about Xerxes’ chief eunuch Hermotimus, Herodotus reports 8

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

the trade in beautiful castrated boys conducted by the Chian Panionius at Ephesus and Sardis.14 With the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander the Great in 333 BC and his assumption of the mantle of the Lord of Asia, eunuchs became a feature of the Hellenistic courts, though not it seems of the ancestral kingdom of Macedonia.15 Greek and Roman authors use eunuchs to illustrate Alexander’s appropriation of the role of the Persian king. A eunuch in the palace at Susa is the instrument for Alexander’s realisation of the immense alteration of the political landscape;16 Alexander maintains the Persian custom of the eunuch throne attendants;17 and he also inherits Darius III’s eunuch lover Bagoas, the Persian boy of Mary Renault’s famous novel of 1972.18 While Macedonia did not embrace the tradition of court eunuchs, they are encountered in the kingdoms of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The evidence is fuller for the Ptolemaic court in Egypt, culminating in such figures as Potheinus regent for Ptolemy XIII (held responsible for the death of Pompey in 48 BC),19 and Mardian the eunuch of Cleopatra VII,20 who duly found his way into Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Eunuchs also appear at the court of another kingdom of the Hellenistic period, the kingdom of Pontus under the rule of Mithridates VI (c. 113–65 BC), infamous archenemy of Rome and member of a dynasty of Persian descent. In Appian’s account of Mithridates and his court chronic use is made of eunuchs, especially in the context of the Third Mithridatic War (73–63 BC):21 Dionysius a naval officer; Tryphon a would-be fortress-holder; special agents, such as Bacchus who was despatched to kill all Mithridates’ wives, sisters and concubines; and general attendants on the king and the royal women.22 Like the classical Greeks the Romans tended to associate eunuchs with the east.23 The Roman historian Tacitus remarks that amongst the barbarians eunuchs are not despised but can obtain power.24 This observation is made in relation to the Parthian eunuch Abdus, but eunuchs were to feature in the revived Persian empire of the Sassanids too (third to seventh centuries AD). Also like the Greeks, the Romans seemed to suffer from extreme anxiety about castration, probably as it undermined the patriarchal ideology of their society. In the first century AD the emperor Domitian (AD 81–96) famously banned castration on Roman soil and controlled the price of those eunuchs who were still to be sold by slave traders.25 Yet it is clear that elite Romans wanted to own eunuchs. Domitian himself had a eunuch cupbearer, Earinus (meaning ‘Spring’), who was celebrated in a poem by Statius.26 It was reputed that after the fall of the praetorian prefect Sejanus in AD 31, his eunuch Paezon was bought by Clutorius Priscus for 50 million sesterces.27 Claudius (AD 41–54) had a eunuch food-taster, Halotus.28 Nero (AD 54–68) allegedly had his young lover Sporus castrated, and the eunuch was subsequently taken up by Nero’s successor Otho.29 Trimalchio, that unforgettable icon of social aspiration and bad taste, is depicted as having two eunuch attendants.30 In the time of the reign of Domitian, the historian Josephus employed a eunuch as a tutor for his son.31 Scenes from everyday life, featured in a bilingual schoolbook probably dating to the late third or early fourth century AD, include a list of the people who make up a Roman household which terminates with ‘the eunuch’.32 Indeed, by the 9

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

later Roman period eunuchs had become an institutional feature of the Imperial court.33 They served as chamberlains (cubicularii), and the position of grand chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) brought social status and opportunities for power, as the cases of Eusebius and Eutropius demonstrate.34 Rome had other reasons for acquaintance with eunuchs however. In 204 BC the cult of Cybele was introduced to the city.35 The worship of this goddess was centred in Asia Minor at Pessinus in Phrygia, and was one of a number of cults devoted to mother goddesses in the east; for example there was also that of the Syrian goddess.36 Our knowledge of the cult of Cybele is however fuller for its Roman context. It was introduced to Rome in order to bring divine assistance to the Romans in their war with Carthage; since the Romans believed they were descended from the Trojan Aeneas, the cult of Cybele was in fact an ancestral one. Associated with the goddess was the figure of Attis, her consort. In one version of the myth he was her young human lover who was driven to castrate himself by Cybele when she discovered he had been unfaithful, and although he died he was resurrected by the goddess. Possibly because of the example of Attis, selfcastration featured in the cult, though eunuchs are associated with the worship of other mother goddesses too.37 The eunuch priests of Cybele were known as galli, and their leader bore the title archigallus. Particular behaviour and rites were associated with the galli. They would dress as women, wear makeup and jewellery, and grow their hair long. Annual rituals developed, most memorably the Day of Blood on 24 March, on which the priests would lacerate themselves, and perhaps castration occurred too. Given such extreme behaviour it is often assumed that Roman citizens would not have become galli themselves. Startlingly perhaps, self-castration is also met in the Roman empire in a more familiar religious context: Christianity.38 In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus Christ defined three types of eunuchs: those who are born eunuchs, those who are made eunuchs, and those make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (19.12). The meaning of the last phrase was open to interpretation, and while some understood it metaphorically, that is in the sense of sexual purity, others took it literally and embraced physical alteration. For instance Justin Martyr reports the case of a Christian seeking legal permission to castrate himself to attain continence.39 The most famous reputed example is that of the Alexandrian Origen.40 The extent to which the issue was of concern to the early church is demonstrated by the fact that it was discussed at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, which banned self-castrates from serving as clergy. However it is quite clear that the practice was not so easily halted. The tradition of the court eunuch established in the Roman empire was maintained in the medieval period by its surviving eastern half centred on the city of Constantinople, otherwise known as the Byzantine empire, which lasted until AD 1453.41 A particularly revealing illustration of this is a text compiled in AD 899 by Philotheos the atriklines, an official whose job it was to organise imperial feasts and ensure that the correct order of precedence of the guests who attended was observed. In his text Philotheos sets out to describe for his fellow atriklinai details of those individuals who could be invited to the various imperial feasts, their exact 10

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

order of precedence at that moment in time, and the main feasts of the year to which various combinations of these individuals were to be invited. In the course of this task Philotheos preserves details of the titles that could be held by eunuchs and of the offices that they could fill, both those that were reserved for them and those that were generally available.42 It is clear that the Byzantine court offered eunuchs social status and a wide diversity of roles. As in the later Roman empire court eunuchs could become powerful political players, Nikephoritzes being the last major example in the eleventh century, after which time the importance of eunuchs is deemed to have declined. However Byzantium also offered eunuchs a place in religious life. They are regularly found in monastic and ecclesiastical roles, which excited adverse comment by some western Christian visitors to the Byzantine empire since they held castrated clergy to be uncanonical.43 Byzantium faced one of its greatest challenges in the seventh century, with the birth of Islam and the rapid establishment of an Arab empire. Although Persia succumbed the Byzantine empire survived. However it seems that the Arabs acquired from Byzantium more than just territory, for henceforth eunuchs became a feature of the courts established in the near east, Europe, Africa and India.44 Given that Islamic law forbade castration on the authority of the Prophet, this meant that most eunuchs employed at Islamic courts were foreigners; the court of the Ottoman Turks in Istanbul (fifteenth to twentieth centuries AD) is particularly well known for its use of black eunuchs, though it also employed white eunuchs.45 As with other courts that retained eunuchs, they could be deployed as palace servants but also as imperial officials, and both situations could lead to the attainment of political power. Eunuchs could also find a role in religious contexts, guarding sacred sites such as the tomb of the Prophet in Madina and the Ka‘ba in Mecca; indeed it seems that eunuchs were still carrying out this function at these two sites as recently as 1990.46 While the tradition of court eunuchs was kept alive in the medieval period by the Orthodox and Islamic powers, the Christian west largely abandoned the custom. The one exception was the Norman kingdom of Sicily, established by Roger II in 1130.47 It seems that the Normans, rather like Hellenistic rulers such as Alexander the Great, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, adopted the practice that they found on the ground, in this case either from the Arabs or the Byzantines. Otherwise the Christian west associated eunuchs with foreign powers, and was more familiar with the reality of castration from its practice as a form of punishment.48 The most famous case is probably that of Peter Abelard, a teacher in Paris, who was castrated in the twelfth century by the relatives of his tutee Heloise with whom Peter had had a sexual relationship. Nevertheless eunuchs became conspicuous in the west in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though not as imperial personnel but as singers.49 Although the unique musical quality of the eunuch voice was not unknown before this time, the birth of opera led to the particular prominence of the castrati.50 By the beginning of the seventeenth century eunuchs were serving as vocalists in the papal choir, and at the same time they started to feature as singers in opera. Monteverdi’s Orfeo (1607) is an early example of an opera to feature a castrato. The castrati 11

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

were mainly Italian, the training provided variously in choir schools, orphanages or by private tutors. Some castrati became international celebrities, though most had more modest careers performing in Italian churches and/or theatres, if they managed to achieve singing careers at all. Cities ranging from Lisbon, Vienna, London, Dublin, Edinburgh to Moscow all played host to castrati, some of whom also performed for exclusive audiences at European royal courts. The castrato Balatri (c. 1676–1756) even sang for the khan of Tartary when on a visit there with the Russian ambassador.51 The most famous castrato was undoubtedly Farinelli (1705–1782), subject of Gérard Corbiau’s 1994 film Farinelli, Il Castrato. Born Carlo Broschi in Apulia, Farinelli was trained by Porpora in Naples, where he made his debut in 1720. He later went on to tour Europe, including a stint in London in the 1730s. In 1737 he settled at the Spanish court in Madrid, where he remained for over twenty years. The phenomenon of the castrati as opera superstars was in decline by the end of the eighteenth century, with a change in musical tastes and an increasing opposition to castration. They continued to feature in church choirs, though the papacy of Leo XIII (1878–1903) saw nails rammed into their coffin; in 1902 he banned the Sistine chapel choir from recruiting any new eunuchs.52 The last castrato to serve in the papal choir was Alessandro Moreschi (1858–1922), known as ‘the angel of Rome’, whose voice was recorded for posterity at the beginning of the twentieth century.53 Eunuchs also surface in modern Europe in another religious context: the Skoptsy of Russia.54 The Skoptsy (literally ‘the castrated ones’ or ‘self-castrators’) were Christians who embraced castration to secure purity and salvation. They came to light in the 1770s, and survived into the 1930s. As justification of their practice they appealed, like early Christians, to Matthew 19.12, though it is not clear if this was what originally prompted them. Charismatic prophets played an important part in originating and developing their community. Male Skoptsy could undergo the removal of just the testicles (‘minor seal’) or of the penis also (‘major seal’). Unusually female members of the community could also endure genital mutilation, encompassing the removal of nipples, breasts and external parts of the vagina. The Skoptsy were mainly of peasant origin from the central Russian provinces, and found themselves persecuted for most of their existence, risking exile to Siberia. The revolution brought initial respite but ultimately put paid to their existence. The hijras of India bring us to the present day.55 The hijras are castrated voluntarily, both the testicles and the penis being removed. Their practice forms part of their dedication to the Hindu goddess Bahuchara Mata (a version of the Indian mother goddess), though there are also Christians and Muslims in the hijra community. The hijras dress and act like women, taking female names and using female kinship terms to describe the relationships between them. They form wellorganised hierarchical communities, mostly in northern India, living in houses headed by gurus, though some hijras live independently. A traditional role of the hijras is to perform at weddings and celebrations for the birth of a child, for which they are paid. They sing and dance to music they perform, and as agents of Bahuchara Mata they have the power to bless the couple or child, imparting 12

THE EUNUCH I N HI STO RY

fertility. However, if slighted or ill treated, the hijras also have the power to curse. Despite their traditional role they can be an object of embarrassment or fear for other Indians. This has apparently led to the development of some hijras working as debt collectors in Bombay, as debtors are only too happy to pay up to get rid of their unwanted attention.56 It seems that hijras can also work as prostitutes. In recent years the western media has regularly featured items about the hijras, not least about the case of the hijra Asha Devi who became the mayor of Gorakpur in 2000.57 Asha Devi was subsequently unseated, because he was a male and not a female, and the position of mayor was reserved for women.58 Finally, it has become clear that in the modern western world, especially in America, some men wish to undergo castration. This circumstance has been highlighted by documentaries such as Stephen White’s Modern Day Eunuchs (2000), Gian Claudio Guiducci and Franco Sacchi’s American Eunuchs (2003), and Channel 4’s Eunuchs (2007), and also by the existence of websites offering advice on self-castration.59 There are also websites providing a communal eunuch identity (e.g. The Eunuch Archive and Born Eunuchs). Intriguingly the motivation for wanting to be castrated can vary drastically. Whilst for some it is a sexual thrill and part of a continuing sex life, for others it is a renunciation of lust. For others still, it can be a step on the path of transsexualism.60 The association of castration and sexual renunciation is also underlined by the fact that some male members of the Heaven’s Gate cult, notorious for the mass suicide in America in 1997, had been castrated.61

Conclusion From the above broad survey it is clear that eunuchs have existed predominantly in the context of royal or imperial courts. Although in the popular imagination their presence at courts is associated with the guarding of women, it is clear that there was much more to their function than this. Eunuchs were more likely to be found in the company of men, and while they could be mere servants they could also acquire key roles at court and in administration. It is evident too that many eunuchs who worked in royal and imperial service originated as slaves, and as such could be utilised in elite households, though some court eunuchs were free individuals. However, the court role alone does not explain the existence of eunuchs. Another major factor is religion, in which sphere enthusiasm for selfcastration could flourish. The art of music also accounts for the occurrence of eunuchs, with the value attached to their voice not just expressed by the emergence of the castrati superstars. Further, sex and sexuality have surfaced as factors in the creation of eunuchs. In such instances castration could be imposed to satisfy the desires of others or voluntarily undergone to fulfil personal objectives. This dimension of the story of eunuchs highlights that they could exist for individual reasons rather than just because of institutional factors. Not all eunuchs can be boxed and labelled easily. What is more definite is that the history of the eunuch is a long one, and is still ongoing.62

13

2 APP ROACHING EUNUCHS Attitudes, studies and problems

Introduction This chapter has two aims: to explore how eunuchs have been treated by historians; and to identify the major methodological problems historians confront studying eunuchs. It is evident that some historians have found the subject an uncomfortable one, reflected by the expression of open hostility or a tendency simply to ignore the topic.1 At the same time the study of eunuchs is complicated by fundamental issues of evidence, including even the identification of individuals as eunuchs. The addressing of this second strand of the current chapter will uncover the more complex reality that lies behind some of the assertions of the previous chapter. What will become clear also is that a broad approach to the topic of eunuchs is profitable, for it reveals at the very least common and persistent issues relating to their study which might otherwise be obscured by too narrow a focus.

Approaches The treatment of eunuchs by modern historians can be marked by distaste and hostility. A famous illustration is provided by Edward Gibbon in his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Discussing the character of the later Roman emperor Constantius II (AD 337–361) and the nature of his regime Gibbon launches an assault on eunuchs: The divided provinces of the empire were again united by the victory of Constantius; but as that feeble prince was destitute of personal merit, either in peace or war; as he feared his generals, and distrusted his ministers; the triumph of his arms served only to establish the reign of the eunuchs over the Roman world. Those unhappy beings, the antient production of Oriental jealousy and despotism, were introduced into Greece and Rome by the contagion of Asiatic luxury. Their progress was rapid; and the eunuchs, who, in the time of Augustus, had been abhorred, as the monstrous retinue of an Egyptian queen, were gradually admitted into the families of matrons, of senators, and of the emperors themselves. Restrained by the severe edicts of Domitian and Nerva, cherished by the pride of Diocletian, reduced to 14

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

an humble station by the prudence of Constantine, they multiplied in the palaces of his degenerate sons, and insensibly acquired the knowledge, and at length the direction, of the secret councils of Constantius. The aversion and contempt which mankind has so uniformly entertained for that imperfect species, appears to have degraded their character, and to have rendered them almost as incapable as they were supposed to be, of conceiving any generous sentiment, or of performing any worthy action. But the eunuchs were skilled in the arts of flattery and intrigue; and they alternately governed the mind of Constantius by his fears, his indolence, and his vanity. Whilst he viewed in a deceitful mirror the fair appearance of public prosperity, he supinely permitted them to intercept the complaints of the injured provinces, to accumulate immense treasures by the sale of justice and of honours; to disgrace the most important dignities, by the promotion of those who had purchased at their hands the power of oppression, and to gratify their resentment against the few independent spirits, who arrogantly refused to solicit the protection of slaves.2 These judgements echo those of Roman authors, especially the historian Ammianus Marcellinus,3 and it is clear that Gibbon made no attempt to look beyond the biases of the primary evidence. Essentially Gibbon agreed with the hostile vision. Such a response to eunuchs had in fact been established by the ancient Greeks in their construction of an image of Persia in particular and of the East in general. As Edith Hall puts it: Eunuchs appalled and fascinated the phallocentric Hellenes . . . especially those who had become famous by reaching high ranks in the court. The palace eunuchs of the Greeks’ imagination encapsulates their systematic feminization of Asia; emotional, wily, subservient, luxurious, and emasculated, he embodies simultaneously all the various threads in the fabric of their orientalist discourse.4 This ‘orientalist discourse’, incorporating the figure of the eunuch, has persisted into modern times. Western depictions of the Ottoman court in literature and art spring easily to mind.5 The fact that eunuchs survived into the modern world as court eunuchs in the Ottoman and Chinese empires, but also as singers and religious devotees, may have influenced the judgement of modern historians on eunuchs of the past. There is certainly nothing objective about the way that Penzer discusses eunuchs in his 1936 study of the Ottoman harem.6 Noting the scarcity of eunuchs in Turkey when he was conducting his research (he was only able to meet ‘two, or possibly three, of these strange beings’) he declares ‘They had been a necessary evil where despotism and polygamy held sway, but now they are a thing of the past – and already have returned in our minds to the pages of the Arabian Nights, where alone they seem rightly to belong’.7 As part of his coverage of eunuchs he provides an overview of their history. He asserts ‘as a general rule the power of eunuchs has brought in its trail nothing but cruelty, intrigue, corruption, 15

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

and disaster’, and citing the very passage of Gibbon on the power of eunuchs under Constantius II reproduced above he goes on to note with some relief that ‘there were those who feared not to attack this cancer that was rotting the heart of the Empire’.8 Penzer reluctantly also includes treatment of the ‘physical and mental condition of eunuchs’ in order to illuminate the harem system and explain ‘its gradual decay and fall, so largely caused by the introduction and increasing influence of this unproductive, sterile, unnatural, and altogether unwholesome member of society – the eunuch’.9 It is important to appreciate however that hostility to eunuchs is not just due to perennial orientalism. For example, in his work on Chinese eunuchs Tsai has noted that modern historians of China depend on the accounts of Confucian scholars, who were hostile to the eunuchs at the court even though they were largely Chinese.10 He observes that it is some western scholars who have been able to question the traditional narratives and try ‘to give eunuchs a more balanced treatment’.11 One is tempted then to understand the hostility expressed towards eunuchs also as the reaction of uncastrated men to the fact of castrated men acquiring influence and power, or even more simply as the disquiet uncastrated men feel when faced with the figure of the eunuch. Something of this unease is still evident today in the jocular or sensitive reactions to the idea of castration.12 There is a strong impression that men feel that their masculinity is threatened by the gender ambiguity of the eunuch. In the case of the hijras this is obviously intensified by their adoption of feminine traits. The mocking report of a journalist in The Independent on the hijras demonstrates the persistent negative reaction to eunuchs.13 There is a clear orientalist streak in the article, but also a preoccupation with gender identity. The discomfort elicited by eunuchs can result not just in open hostility but in an unwillingness to engage with the subject, no matter how important it may be in historical terms. When Penzer produced his survey of eunuch history he was struck by the lack of work devoted to the subject that he found to draw on, and noted that the eighteenth-century study of Charles Ancillon was produced under a nom-de-plume (d’Ollincan) and was also translated into English anonymously (by Robert Samber).14 The inference is that people did not really want to engage with such a distasteful subject, and if they did, they did not want to advertise the fact.15 Although recent years have witnessed a burgeoning interest in eunuchs, avoidance is still detectable. Despite the recognised importance of the phenomenon of court eunuchs in the later Roman period two modern ‘guides’ to late antiquity fail to address eunuchs at all.16 Another response can be to write eunuchs out of history. An example of this is the treatment of the eunuch Bagoas by the historian Tarn.17 Bagoas features in some of the sources for the life of Alexander the Great, most notably the history of Quintus Curtius Rufus.18 The eunuch appears as the lover of the Persian king Darius III, a role he subsequently also played for the conquering Alexander. However, since Bagoas did not feature in Arrian’s history of Alexander and there existed some apparent oddities in the evidence featuring the eunuch, Tarn argued that Bagoas had not existed in reality, but was a construct which facilitated criticism 16

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

of Alexander. Such an argument is not without merit, but it is quite evident that Tarn was pleased to be able to dispense with Bagoas as a historical figure because he was unhappy that Alexander should be thought to be homosexual. Notably, ten years later, the historian Badian made a case for the existence of Bagoas, which has tended to be accepted.19 Interestingly Bagoas remains a controversial figure: though he features in Oliver Stone’s biopic Alexander (2004), it was reported that his love scene with Alexander was cut due to the anticipated sensitivities of the audience, a fact confirmed by the actor who played him, Francisco Bosch.20 Despite the hostility and unease demonstrated by some historians, others have been more willing to engage with the subject of eunuchs, from a diversity of perspectives (e.g. institutional or gender history, personal or practical reasons). As Penzer observed, by the 1930s not many studies had been devoted to eunuchs. Of the general works on eunuchs by modern historians, the most familiar early attempt is Charles Ancillon’s Traité des eunuques (1707), translated into English by Robert Samber in 1718 under the title Eunuchism Display’d.21 It turns out however that the main preoccupation of the author is the question of whether present day eunuchs should be allowed to marry.22 He is of the firm and unfriendly opinion that they should not. The issue of eunuchs marrying arose primarily in relation to the Italian castrati.23 This is made even more explicit in the English translation, which was inspired by the case of a young lady falling in love with Nicolini, who had sung in opera at the Haymarket Theatre, and wanting to marry him.24 Ancillon’s general attitude to eunuchs can be illustrated by his assertion that eunuchs are like bastards (in the technical sense): there might be the occasional good one but they are usually bad.25 At the start of the twentieth century another French study was published, Richard Millant’s Les eunuques à travers les âges (1908). Millant was a doctor, and this informed his approach to the subject (he had already written about castration). The fact that his work was published in the series Les perversions sexuelles speaks volumes.26 Millant did however attempt to provide an accurate general historical survey, omitting the moral considerations, albeit reluctantly.27 After the signs of interest at the start of the twentieth century there seems to have been a hiatus again in the production of monographs on eunuchs, though it was one measured in decades rather than centuries.28 In the 1970s there appeared Charles Humana’s The Keeper of the Bed: The Story of the Eunuch. Humana begins with a promising display of enlightenment by recognising the hostility with which eunuchs have tended to be received. He observes ‘For too long [the eunuch] has remained as mysterious as the harems he guarded, as hidden as the concubines in his care, and this secrecy, responsible for the prejudice and misconceptions of the past, has persisted through the ages’.29 However his work is an odd blend of provision of information and reproduction of stories about eunuchs, rather than a comprehensive analytical survey. Particularly extensive passages are drawn from Montesquieu’s Persian Letters, Casanova’s Memoirs, Richard Burton’s The Arabian Nights and Stent’s examination of Chinese eunuchs. Many illustrations are included too, but these tend to lack contextualisation. Some have judged Humana’s work ‘salacious’ and not a significant contribution to the subject.30 17

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

The most recent general work on eunuchs is Scholz’s Eunuchs and Castrati: A Cultural History, appearing at the start of the twenty-first century, though the German original was published in 1999. Scholz declares that it was in part the odd lack of mention of eunuchs in leading reference works on classical antiquity that ‘impelled [him] to investigate this neglected subject in greater depth’.31 His book is reflective of the growing interest in the subject matter and related issues, which is reinforced by the useful ‘Epilogue’ provided by Shelley L. Frisch, one of the translators.32 However Scholz’s study has its limitations. It has been described as ‘an informative and chatty, though not always strictly accurate, general account of the subject’, and criticised for its preoccupation with the ‘ethereal’ aspect of castration at the expense of other important features.33 Not all general works choose to foreground the eunuch however; several have instead selected castration as their subject.34 An eminent example is Browe’s history of emasculation, which appeared in 1936. The importance of Browe’s work, as well as its limitations, have been recognised.35 Whilst it is more scholarly and rigorous than the earlier French studies, it tends to focus on western Europe. Its value to western medievalists has also been supplanted by the recent work of another German, Tuchel’s study of castration in the middle ages.36 Tuchel is as much concerned with the idea of castration as with the reality, unlike the American Cheney, the author of a history of castration which he published in 1995. Cheney, a retired military man with qualifications in criminal justice, appears to be interested in the subject because of practical concerns: the use of castration as a form of treatment for sex offenders.37 Cheney’s study spans the history of the eunuch, but such an ambitious project naturally means that he is dependent for much of his information on the works of others, and as such is susceptible to the vagaries that can exist. A personal explanation for preoccupation with castration can also be found in Taylor’s very different take on the subject, a reflection on manhood.38 He makes his affinity to the subject clear from the very start, recording how his girlfriend boasted at a party that he had been ‘fixed’, that is he had had a vasectomy.39 Beyond the general histories of eunuchs or castration lies the field of more specific studies, which can be far more important in advancing knowledge about, and approaches to, eunuchs. The twentieth century witnessed an increase of interest in the subject, especially in its latter stages. Awareness of later Roman and Byzantine eunuchs has been particularly evident across the century. A recurring concern has been institutional history, witness Dunlap’s study of grand chamberlains, Guilland’s series of articles on the offices of Byzantine eunuchs, and more recently Scholten’s monograph on grand chamberlains in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.40 Along the way other salient comments and contributions have been made,41 but probably the most significant work was Hopkins’ examination of the phenomenon of the powerful court eunuchs of late antiquity.42 This had the virtue of taking the subject seriously, and employing a sociological approach to understand why eunuchs became so valued by later Roman emperors. While aspects of its argument can be challenged, it set a high benchmark.43 Further noteworthy studies have appeared on other topics such as holy eunuchs in late 18

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

antiquity, Byzantine eunuchs as singers, and the gender identity of Byzantine eunuchs.44 Other periods of history have also received attention. The eunuchs of antiquity, from ancient Assyria to the later Roman empire, were surveyed by Guyot.45 His specific interest was in eunuchs as slaves and freedmen, but his work has much wider value. Usefully he includes individual prosopographical entries for known eunuchs. However his monograph does not seem to have made a great impact.46 Concerning Greco-Roman antiquity, an area where the study of eunuchs has come to the fore is religion, because of their place in certain cults, including Christianity.47 Looking beyond the spheres of Greece and Rome, the existence of eunuchs in Assyria and contemporary near eastern cultures is much debated, and a particularly notable contribution to the discussion has been made by Grayson, who deploys a comparative approach to attempt to throw light on the Assyrian case.48 Turning to other civilisations, Chinese eunuchs have received their fair share of attention. Studies can range from popular works to more significant analytical treatments.49 Amongst the latter is Tsai’s monograph on the eunuchs of the Ming dynasty, which attempts to deconstruct the negative attitude of the Chinese sources towards eunuchs and appreciate the value of eunuchs within the Chinese imperial system.50 Such is the novelty of Tsai’s approach that it is clear that at times he himself still has to struggle to overcome the centuries of prejudice. Also worthy of note is the work of Jay, who looks beyond the functions of the imperial eunuchs to explore social issues.51 Recently eunuchs of the Islamic world have been subject to scrutiny too. Ayalon’s monograph on the topic appeared posthumously, and marked the culmination of two decades of work.52 His focus was largely the political arena, but his contribution is especially striking for its determined effort to prove the terminology for eunuchs.53 Eunuchs in the religious sphere of Islam have also received consideration in a study by Marmon, who highlights in particular the role of eunuchs as guardians of sacred space, such as the tomb of the Prophet in Madina.54 There are aspects of eunuchs in the Islamic world which still require further exploration however. Compared to the work of Penzer a much more objective approach to Ottoman eunuchs is taken by Peirce in her monograph on women and the harem,55 but a dedicated study would be welcome, as would a treatment of eunuchs in Islamic Spain.56 As has been mentioned already, castration in medieval Europe forms the subject of a recent monograph by Tuchel, but shorter articles on the theme have appeared also, with both general and specific focuses.57As observed these tend to be as much concerned with the idea of castration as the reality. One area where the study of the reality of the eunuch in the medieval west could be expanded is in Norman Sicily, on which Johns has already made helpful remarks.58 Much greater headway has been made with the castrati, where the traditional accounts which can depend upon the acceptance of a mythology constructed in the late eighteenth century have been supplemented by the more analytical and challenging work of Rosselli.59 The issue of gender has also come to the fore, in the work of Finucci.60 19

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

Finally, there has been important recent work on both the Skoptsy and the hijras. Engelstein’s study of the former was able to draw on a mass of documentary material to establish a vivid picture of how the Skoptsy thought of themselves as well as how they were thought of within Russian society.61 The anthropologist Nanda was able to go one better of course, by being able to interact with the hijras themselves.62

Problems In addition to the baggage that an author might bring with them to the study of eunuchs, there is a host of other problems because of the nature of the evidence itself. Obviously the historian is dependent on its quantity and quality, and both these aspects present challenges. The modern reluctance to engage with the subject is echoed in earlier times. For example, there is a shortage of information on the operation of castration in antiquity just as in the case of the Italian castrati.63 As for quality, one of the key issues is the hostile attitude to eunuchs. This is common throughout the relevant cultures.64 It is clear also that the theme of eunuchs could be used as a means of attacking other targets, such as a foreign regime. This is illustrated by the Roman depiction of the entourage of Hellenistic monarchs like Mithridates VI and Cleopatra VII, and western Christian accounts of Byzantium.65 Symeon the Tsar of Bulgaria in the early tenth century was able to attack Byzantium for being governed by eunuchs, referring to the time when Constantine VII was still a minor and the eunuch Constantine the Paphlagonian was a key figure in the regency.66 The theme could also be used to attack a domestic regime that one did not approve of (such as Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the place of eunuchs within the court of Constantius II67). This is not to say that all accounts of eunuchs are negative. For instance Greek historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon could recognise the value eunuchs had for their Persian masters,68 whilst eunuchs could be rated as pure and beautiful beings in the later Roman and Byzantine periods.69 However, in general, the bias of the evidence must be identified and addressed. Regarding the quality of evidence on eunuchs one must also be alert to other aspects of its nature. In the case of Greek stories about eunuchs, several historians have warned about the fictional nature of accounts by writers such as Herodotus and Ctesias.70 The factual truth of Herodotus’ famous account of the revenge of Hermotimus (chief eunuch of Xerxes) upon his castrator the slave trader Panionius, has been queried by Hornblower due to the seemingly symbolic nature of the story.71 Briant characterises Ctesias’ narrative of affairs involving eunuchs at the Persian court as owing more to imagination than reality, raising again the issue of orientalism.72 Perhaps though being too sceptical can be as dangerous as being gullible. Ctesias certainly has his defenders.73 And, as Briant acknowledges, even if stories about eunuchs are more fiction than fact they are still revealing of attitudes and concepts. There also exist less immediately obvious problems. Predominant is the issue of identifying eunuchs. This can arise because of the vagueness of the evidence. For instance, Euripides’ play Orestes features a Phrygian slave belonging to the 20

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

infamous Helen, who has returned to Greece from Troy.74 The slave is never identified as a eunuch, but aspects of his behaviour, function and dress suggest that he is. Also significant is that Orestes refers to the Phrygian as ‘neither man nor woman’, a descriptor for eunuchs that became common in antiquity. The implication is that Helen has adopted eastern customs. Despite all these clues, Hall reports that some commentators have argued that he was not a eunuch. One might suspect academic caution, or alternatively an unwillingness to confront the existence of such a being. Other examples of lack of explicitness can be cited. The history of Ammianus Marcellinus features the grand chamberlain Eusebius, but Ammianus never describes him as a eunuch. His subordinate eunuch chamberlains and his office might suggest that Eusebius is a eunuch, but concrete identification comes from other sources. The importance of having more than one text is also illustrated by an earlier case. In his history of Alexander the Great, Curtius mentions the governor of Gaza, Betis, whom Alexander had to defeat, but it is Arrian who adds the detail that he was a eunuch.75 This makes one realise that there may be individuals who were eunuchs, but who are simply not recorded as such for posterity.76 A further complication in identifying eunuchs is that non-eunuchs can sometimes hold offices that might be expected to have been filled by eunuchs. A good example of this is the Byzantine case of Basil the Macedonian. Although not a eunuch he was appointed by his patron the emperor Michael III (842–867) to the office of parakoimomenos, which was meant to be reserved for eunuchs.77 Thus if an individual is not identified as a eunuch but holds what is assumed to be a eunuch office one has to hesitate in declaring him a eunuch. In this respect it is interesting to note the practice of the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire. This database identifies people under the category of Sex as Male (M), Female (F) or Eunuch (E), but this can lead to complications. How can one be sure who is a eunuch? There are certainly some oddities of categorisation too. Baanes 5 who served Basil I is not listed as Eunuch but as Male, though he probably was a eunuch, while Ignatios 1 the ninth-century patriarch is not listed as Eunuch even though it is known that he was castrated. The next instalment of the prosopographical project, the Prosopography of the Byzantine World, is more sensitive to these issues: it has added the category Presumed Eunuch. However, even when sources do identify individuals as eunuchs historians can have their doubts. The best example of such a case is Philetaerus, the first Attalid dynast of Pergamum in the Hellenistic period.78 He is described as a eunuch by both Pausanias and Strabo, the latter adding the information that he was an accidental one, having been crushed in a crowd as a child.79 Some historians have nevertheless doubted that he was a eunuch. It is possible that his identification as such is merely malicious slander which emanated from opponents of the Attalids.80 Another suggested response is to understand Strabo’s story as just another ‘problematised-origin’ tale common to the Successors of Alexander the Great.81 However there seems no good reason to doubt that Philetaerus was a eunuch. One might point to the supporting information that he was a treasurer (a 21

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

role thought appropriate to eunuchs) and that he was succeeded as dynast by a nephew, though the import of these details can be debated. The fundamental problem with identifying eunuchs, though, is one of terminology. This complication is probably most well known from the Assyrian case, usefully discussed by Grayson.82 The Akkadian term in question is ša rƝši, literally meaning ‘(he) of the head’, which has been understood as ‘attendant’. Some Assyriologists translate it more specifically as ‘eunuch’. It is evident that it can mean eunuch in certain contexts, but whether it always has this meaning is debated. Even Grayson acknowledges that its meaning could vary over time and from place to place. In the Neo-Assyrian period it seems that ša rƝši is often teamed with the term ša ziqni (meaning ‘the bearded ones’) to designate all Assyrian officials, which indicates that the former are beardless, and thus possibly eunuchs. While Grayson and others accept that the term ša rƝši can be translated as ‘eunuch’, there are opposing voices.83 One such is Briant, who enters the debate in relation to eunuchs in the Achaemenid empire.84 He posits that there were two types of eunuch at the Persian court, those who were castrated slaves and those who formed the nobility which held court offices. To be clear, Briant is suggesting that the term ‘eunuch’ (as used by Greeks) is simply the title of members of the latter group and that none of this group were castrated men. To support this interpretation he draws on the arguments about the interpretation of ša rƝši, siding with those who read it as a title. Briant observes ‘To interpret ša rƝã šarri consistently as “eunuch” leads to a sort of absurdity, as P. Garelli has humorusly [sic] expressed it: “Is it necessary to castrate half the Assyrian administration and nearly everyone at court?”.’ Such an attitude perhaps reveals a reluctance to recognise the importance of eunuchs in royal and imperial courts. The knowledge that there existed in Byzantium a similar division of officialdom between ‘eunuch’ and ‘bearded’ might provide pause for thought.85 Terminology has been debated in other cases too. In the field of Islamic history it is generally accepted that khasƯ means ‘the castrated’. However Ayalon argued that the term khƗdim, originally meaning ‘servant’, and which can also mean ‘eunuch’, should in fact be regularly translated as the latter.86 Since Islamicists did not consistently follow this reading, and one in particular challenged it,87 Ayalon was moved to prove the case by what he terms ‘super-overkill’, included in his monograph on eunuchs.88 Ayalon acknowledges that the meaning ‘eunuch’ did not entirely replace the meaning ‘servant’, but notes that the more specific meaning existed because eunuchs were recognised as good at serving.89 He adds that the meaning ‘servant’ has reverted to dominance, which has exacerbated the difficulty historians have in accepting the reading ‘eunuch’ in medieval texts.90 More surprisingly perhaps, the significance of the term eunuch itself can be contended. The word is Greek, and is usually understood to have the literal meaning ‘guardian of the bed’. Although the term itself does not indicate that the physical condition of the individual has been altered, it seems that the Greeks assumed that eunuchs were castrated males.91 However Briant raises the possibility of confusion, in relation to Ctesias in particular.92 Since he believes that not all individuals identified as eunuchs in the context of the Achaemenid empire were 22

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

eunuchs in the sense of castrated males, he wonders what Persian word ‘eunuch’ was based upon, and also points to the mistaking of ‘oinokhoos’ (cup-bearer) for ‘eunoukhos’ (eunuch). He suggests that ‘eunuch is how the Greeks transmitted a term that the court of the Great King considered a court title’. Whatever the value of Briant’s argument,93 it remains clear that Greeks assumed a eunuch was a castrated male. Yet there was scope for confusion since the term could be used in a metaphorical sense. This is most familiar from the Christian context. Christ’s reference to ‘Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’ (Matt. 19.12), though taken literally by some, could also be understood to signify celibates. Thus, when individual Christians are described as eunuchs there can be debate as to whether this should be read in its real or metaphorical sense.94 Thankfully not all terminology is so problematic, as some indicates physical alteration. Most obviously there is ‘castrato’, in the context of music. One can safely assume that those individuals described as such were castrated males, though there are stories of non-castrated men and women posing as castrati.95 In addition to ‘eunuch’ another Greek term that existed is ‘ektomias’, which literally means ‘cut’.96 It is worth observing however that members of groups that valued/value voluntary castration, such as the Skoptsy and the hijras, did/do not necessarily undergo this transformation.97 This adds support to the notion that not all galli were castrated.98 In addition to the question of terminology there is the problem of visual representation. Visual evidence figures in the debate about the existence of Assyrian eunuchs.99 It is well known that Assyrian reliefs feature beardless figures (Plate 1), and some Assyriologists argue that these represent eunuchs, for in some societies beards were de rigueur for adult men.100 However, others suggest that they may simply represent youths. The problem is not isolated to Assyria though. Persian reliefs also feature beardless figures, though they are depicted rather differently from the Assyrian examples, being described as appearing ‘slim’ and ‘elegant’ (Plate 2).101 Again historians are divided about whether to read these figures as eunuchs.102 A later Roman case is the famous Theodora panel from San Vitale in Ravenna (Plate 3).103 The empress is depicted accompanied by an entourage of women on her left and by two men on her right. These men are beardless, and are often assumed to be eunuchs. However at this time in Roman history beards had not yet become the norm for adult men, so there is room for uncertainty: the concomitant Justinian panel features beardless men too. One can turn to arguments about dress and function to attempt to clarify the identity of the individuals depicted in art. Inscriptions are a possible further aid to identification, as these can be included in images. A Byzantine example is the donor portrait of the tenth-century Leo Bible, which depicts the beardless Leo gifting his Bible to the Virgin (Plate 14).104 Whilst his beardlessness suggests his condition as a eunuch, it is the accompanying inscriptions which provide support.105 He is described as a praipositos and a sakellarios, positions typically held by eunuchs. Other examples exist. Depictions of beardless men also appeared on Hittite reliefs, and these could feature inscriptions. Hawkins argues that these can explicitly declare the eunuch identity of the beardless individuals where the term wasinasi- is used, which he reads as ‘eunuch’.106 A fresco dating to the third century AD from Dura-Europos on 23

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

the Euphrates depicts beardless figures participating in a sacrifice, one of whom is revealed by inscription to be called Otes, but also to be a eunuch.107 On the other hand, some figures can be even more obscure. A fragment of an Attic red-figure cup survives (c. 500–490 BC) which appears to show a black male symposium attendant.108 The figure is naked and seems to have no genitals, so some have suggested that he is a eunuch. The apparent facial hair, which would undermine the case, is reinterpreted as scarification. Given the oddity of the iconography perhaps this case is best left open. A final difficulty worth highlighting is the lack of eunuch voices. Often, especially in the cases of antiquity and the middle ages, one has to depend on the testimony of non-eunuchs for knowledge about eunuchs.109 The general absence of a eunuch perspective must be considered regrettable.110 There are however some exceptions to the general lack of a eunuch perspective. Barbier laments that the castrati did not write their memoirs, but notes the unique case of Filippo Balatri.111 Balatri’s autobiography is also striking because it was written in rhyming verse, a form that no doubt affected the nature of the content.112 Historians of China also refer to the memoirs of the eunuch Liu Ruoyu (sixteenth to seventeenth centuries AD).113 Given the rarity of these examples it is odd that they have not received more detailed attention. The closer one gets to the present day, the greater the opportunities for accessing the thought world of castrates become. For the case of the Skoptsy, Engelstein was able to draw on a self-created archive.114 Particularly intriguing are the letters of Nikifor Petrovich Latyshev, voluntarily despatched to the official Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich.115 When it comes to the hijras, who are still extant, members of this group can be engaged with directly and speak for themselves, witness the work of Nanda and Jaffrey, but also the plethora of reports written by journalists.116 There have even been published the e-mail letters of the hijra Mona Ahmed.117 It is important to appreciate however that although such selfcreated texts are valuable, they are not without their own problems. Nanda’s study of the hijras indicates that their narratives tend to conform to clichéd patterns, raising the possibility of standard modes of self-presentation.118 Engelstein comments explicitly on the self-conscious nature of the self-presentation of the Skoptsy.119 The issue of self-presentation raises the question of truthfulness. In the case of Skoptsy being questioned in a legal context one might expect them to seek to protect themselves.120 But the hijras too can be elusive, and Nanda also notes the practical problem of talking to a hijra alone.121 One might assume that the e-mails of Mona Ahmed tell it like it is, but one should consider how they were selected, what editing has occurred, whether as an outcast from her community she is a typical hijra (if there is such a thing), and to what extent she felt constrained to provide a particular version of events. The eunuch voice should also be considered in relation to visual evidence. This is particularly clear in the case of the Skoptsy, who embraced the medium of photography to record their identity.122 The hijras appear enthusiastic to be documented visually,123 and Nanda records that one hijra even wanted her altered groin to be photographed to demonstrate ‘the power and skill of the hijras’.124 Opportunities to explore visual self-representation exist in earlier contexts too. 24

APPROACHI NG EUNU C H S

Famous castrati could have themselves painted, such as the portrait of Farinelli with friends by Jacopo Amigoni (Plate 11), an image which provides a sharp contrast with contemporary caricatures (Plate 10).125 A Byzantine example is the Leo Bible, which features a portrait of the eunuch donor Leo, as well as inscriptions composed in his voice (Plate 14).126 Just as with verbal representations one needs to use caution in reading the visual representations. One needs to consider what the aim of the image is, and to what extent it exhibits free expression.

Conclusion The study of eunuchs presents a mixed picture. While there has been hostility and discomfort (echoing contemporary attitudes as well as reflecting persistent prejudice) and an element of sensationalism not to say salaciousness, there seems now to be an effort to understand eunuchs and to consider history from an alternative perspective.127 Naturally there is variation in the quality of the work on eunuchs, as well as in the nature of the interest. In addition to more personal motivations, concerns with institutional, political, social, medical and cultural history have all led to the study of eunuchs. In recent years however it is clear that it is the rise of gender history that has played a major part in the increasing interest in, and examination of, eunuchs. Despite the growing number of publications there are still aspects of eunuch life and history that require attention. Those who study eunuchs have to face, however, significant problems with the evidence, such as paucity, bias and the different interpretations it can be subject to. An approach that has been signalled as an important way forward is comparative history.128 The common issues in studying eunuchs identified above support the value of this approach, and suggest that it is a fertile method for achieving a deeper understanding of the eunuch.129

25

3 CAS TRATION

Introduction The topic of castration is vital to a discussion of eunuchs, although as has been seen castration can be studied in its own right; it is not identical to the subject of eunuchs. This book is primarily concerned with those who were deliberately created eunuchs by themselves or others, but this chapter will touch on wider issues. The reasons for the occurrence of castration will be identified, as well as the varying degrees and methods of the operation. The physical consequences of castration will be explored, but the ideological consequences will receive some initial consideration too. What concepts existed about eunuchs due to the fact that they were physically altered human beings? The chapter will also acknowledge the fact that not everyone had to be created a eunuch on purpose: some individuals were eunuchs by birth or accident. A broad historical approach will inform the discussion, but evidence relating to the Greco-Roman and Byzantine worlds will be of particular concern.

Reasons for castration A diversity of reasons accounts for the castration of human beings. Considering the span of human history, probably the most prevalent explanation for castration was the deliberate creation of eunuchs, that is physically altered humans. This was done primarily to create servants, and has a particular association with slavery, as seen for instance in the Roman and Islamic contexts. Since both cultures held the strong view that Romans or Muslims should not be castrated, they depended on foreign sources of supply. In the sixth century AD the writer Procopius observed that most eunuchs at the imperial court in Constantinople were Abasgian slaves.1 An earlier example of eunuchs originating in the slave trade is Herodotus’ story of Hermotimus’ revenge on the Chian slave trader Panionius.2 The historian relates that Panionius’ speciality was selling castrated boys in Sardis and Ephesus. However, not all eunuchs were slaves, even if they were in service. Byzantium and China for instance witnessed the existence of eunuchs who became so by their own consent or by that of their families. The major consumers of eunuchs were of course the royal and imperial courts, such as the Chinese, Assyrian, Persian, 26

CASTRATI ON

Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic. However the elites of such cultures could share this taste for eunuchs. For instance Pliny the Elder records that Clutorius Priscus paid 50 million sesterces for the eunuch Paezon, who had belonged to the Praetorian Prefect Sejanus.3 This case highlights the fact that eunuch slaves were luxury items, and thus status symbols.4 Pliny alleges that Clutorius Priscus’ purchase of Paezon was motivated by lust, and certainly eunuchs are associated with sex, such as Alexander the Great’s Bagoas and Nero’s Sporus. Some sources indicate that beauty was a prerequisite of the boys who were castrated,5 which suggests that aesthetics, if not simple desire, could be a motive factor. The general role of eunuchs at courts or in private households was as servants, as some of the terminology discussed in the previous chapter indicates. As was seen, the Greek term eunuch could be understood to mean ‘guardian of the bed’, or chamberlain, and in the popular imagination the role of the eunuch is most associated with attendance upon women due to the fact that they were castrated beings (and hence safe), but eunuchs also attended upon men, indeed probably more so. Eunuchs were not just created to be servants. Castration of young boys was essential for the attainment of distinctive singing voices, well known in the case of the Italian castrati, but appreciated earlier than this.6 For instance, Odo of Deuil, who accompanied the French king LouisVII on the Second Crusade, records that when they were received by the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos he helped them celebrate the feast of St Denis by providing them with a group of clergy who sang for the visitors. Despite his usual hostility to the Byzantines Odo is moved to praise, commenting that the clergy made a favorable impression because of their sweet chanting; for the mingling of voices, the heavier with the light, the eunuch’s namely, with the manly voice (for many of them were eunuchs), softened the hearts of the Franks. Also, they gave the onlookers pleasure by the graceful bearing and gentle clapping of hands and genuflexions.7 Castration was also valued in a religious context, where it was usually embraced voluntarily. This has been seen in the examples of the galli, early Christians, the Skoptsy and the hijras. It should however be noted that the element of free will cannot always be observed. In the case of the Skoptsy, it is clear that some were castrated when they were children, thus more likely at the wishes of their parents or relatives rather than of their own volition.8 Some Byzantine texts indicate sons or nephews could be castrated on the grounds of Christian sentiment.9 A fictional example appears in the twelfth-century In Defence of Eunuchs by Theophylact of Ochrid.10 This work is presented as an exchange that the author had happened to overhear between a monk and a eunuch. The latter is the defender of eunuchs, and has had his nephew castrated.11 With regard to the hijras, there are stories that some are castrated without their consent, though such reports may be inspired by hostility.12 Castration could also be sought in relation to issues of sex and gender. Modern examples are probably more familiar here, such as male-to-female transsexuals, 27

CASTRATI ON

or men who wish to undergo castration for purposes of sexual gratification or sexual denial.13 These latter motives were not unheard of in the ancient world however. Juvenal writes of women who take as lovers men who have been castrated after puberty (a drastic form of contraception), but the satisfaction appears in this instance to be felt by the females.14 The idea of castration as a form of renunciation is met in Heraclides Ponticus’ On Enjoyment. He relates that when Deinas, a keeper of a perfume shop, reached old age after a life of debauchery he castrated himself.15 In this case however the effect is somewhat blunted as Deinas took this action as he could no longer engage in sex, not that he wanted to give it up. More fitting is the case of a Mr Seaton, who castrated himself in Edinburgh in June 1707.16 It is reported that ‘he cut away one of his stones, which he threw into the fire, saying, It should trouble him no more! He also hurt the other, which is scarce thought to be curable’. His explanation of his action was that he wanted ‘to prevent his being tempted to acts of incontinency’. It may be significant that Mr Seaton is also reported to have fitted his wife with a chastity belt. A recurring reason for castration is the infliction of punishment.17 This aspect is still familiar today, as reflected by Cheney’s practical interest in the topic. However Cheney is representative of a wider debate about the use of castration as treatment for sex offenders such as rapists and paedophiles.18 In this modern context, castration can be chemical as well as surgical. The ancient and medieval worlds were also familiar with the concept of castration as suitable punishment for sex crimes. The Middle Assyrian Laws specify this penalty for men who commit adultery, but also for men who have sex with men.19 Castration as punishment for rapists and homosexuals was also known in the later Roman world, as the chronicler Malalas testifies when relating events from the reign of Justinian I (527–565).20 The eighth-century Byzantine law book the Ekloga lists castration as the punishment for bestiality.21 From the medieval west the case of the castration of Abelard by relatives of Heloise has already been met. Castration could also be wielded against political opponents. In Byzantium there are cases of usurping emperors who castrate the previous ruler, but also his sons, the most famous example being the treatment of Michael I (811–813) and his sons Theophylact and Niketas by Leo V.22 The idea seems to have been to bar the victims from ever holding imperial office again, as eunuchs could not attain the position of emperor.23 Emperors could even inflict castration on members of their own family, as illustrated by Michael V (1040–1041), who castrated all his males relatives (those who were not already eunuchs), both mature and pre-pubertal, once he attained the throne.24 The Byzantines could also employ castration when dealing with foreign royal families. In the tenth century the son of the Bulgarian tsar Peter, Romanos, was castrated after he had been handed over to Byzantium as a hostage.25 The concept of castration as a political weapon is also met in other cultures such as medieval northern Europe and ancient Greece.26 In the case of Pharaonic Egypt, castration could even be inflicted on enemies killed in battle, witness one of the reliefs at Medinet Habu depicting the campaigns of Ramesses III (c. 1186–1154 BC) against the Libyans, which shows piles of severed genitals.27 28

CASTRATI ON

Conversely, castration could be a form of assistance, in a medical context.28 The occurrence of orchidectomy (removing a testicle by surgery) in the modern world for the treatment of medical conditions (such as prostate cancer) is familiar, but castration can now be accomplished by chemical methods too.29 Castration as medical treatment is also met in the ancient and medieval worlds. Although the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (886–912) legislated against castration he allowed the operation to continue where it was performed for medical reasons, since its purpose in this context was to aid, not to mutilate.30 (This of course provided a loop hole for those who wished to carry out castration for other reasons, as Theophylact of Ochrid acknowledges: ed. Gautier (1980), 311.22–313.3.) Some of the Byzantine eunuchs who later became saints were said to have been castrated as children on the grounds of ill health.31 The castration of a Byzantine boy could occur because he was suffering from a hernia.32 The Miracles of St Artemios testifies to the use of castration as a medical treatment for hernias.33 A graffito from Athens records the wish of a man that he was a doctor so that he could castrate his wife’s lover for a hernia.34 In the medieval west castration for medical purposes is also met. Gregory of Tours relates that a doctor castrated a child that had a diseased groin, an operation he was familiar with from observation of surgeons in Constantinople.35 In western Europe it was thought that castration was vital for treating a hernia, a practice apparently only terminated in the eighteenth century.36 As mentioned above castration features in male-to-female sex changes, an operation customarily undertaken with the consent of the patient. An unusual, and infamous, case however is that of the Canadian Bruce/Brenda Reimer.37 In 1966, when he was a baby, Bruce’s penis was accidentally burnt off when he was undergoing circumcision by electric cauterisation. Subsequently, after his parents consulted with Dr John Money, the decision was taken to remove his testicles too and bring him up as a girl. Bruce became Brenda.38

Castration: degrees and methods Information about castration and accounts of the operation, beyond those of modern medicine, can be hard to come by. For instance, no description of the procedure exists for the classical world, and in the case of the castrati no castrator has left opinions on their actions, while travellers to Italy were uncertain as to where the operation was performed.39 It seems that there are factors which explain this scarcity of information. Feelings such as distaste and shame might account for the lack of willingness to talk about the practice. More importantly there is the question of the legal status of the procedure. For instance, the Roman emperor Domitian famously banned castration,40 while, despite the desire for the castrati, those who performed castrations faced the penalty of excommunication.41 More recently the hijras of India have to perform the rite in a society which considers castration criminal,42 and in the west ‘cutters’ equally operate outside the law.43 This is not to say that there are no accounts of castration at all. From her contacts with the hijras Nanda was able to provide a description of the operation.44 In the context of the hijras castration has the status of a religious rite, marking 29

CASTRATI ON

the transition to becoming a true hijra. The operation is performed by a dai ma, meaning midwife, which indicates the symbolism of the act as a form of rebirth. The role of the goddess Bahuchara Mata in summoning dai mas and sanctioning the performance of the rite underscores the religious significance of the event. Castration for the hijras encompasses the removal of both the testicles and the penis with a knife, the genitals having been constricted with string. The urethra has to be kept open with a stick, to prevent it sealing up and blocking the release of urine. The severed genitals are put in a pot and interred under a tree. The period after the operation also has symbolic significance, being equated with the recovery after childbirth. In the case of Chinese eunuchs, a famous description of the operation of castration has been provided in the latter half of the nineteenth century AD by George Carter Stent, a British official in China.45 Stent terms those who perform the operation ‘knifers’, who were professional castrators working inside the imperial city. The consent of the subject is vital. As with the hijras the entire genitals are removed with a knife and the urethra is kept open, in this instance by inserting ‘a pewter needle or spigot’. Once again, the removed parts are not neglected. They are called the ‘precious’, and are preserved in jars. Stent says this occurs because the possession of the precious is essential for securing promotion and for burial with the body after death so that completeness in the afterlife can be secured. Other accounts of castration exist also. There are the legal proceedings and self-produced testimonies which preserve narratives of the lives of Skoptsy.46 More recently, there are DIY castration sites on the internet. Fortunately, in the case of Byzantium, an account of the operation of castration has survived in a medical encyclopaedia compiled in the seventh century by Paul of Aegina, a doctor.47 In his Epitome of Medicine Paul relates that he sometimes performed the operation under duress from ‘certain more powerful people’, and describes two methods of castration, one by compression (KAT‘UL­SIN) and the other by excision (KAT\KTOMˆN). He writes: That by compression is performed thus: children, still of a tender age, are placed in a vessel of hot water, and then when the bodily parts are softened in the bath, the testicles are to be squeezed with the fingers until they disappear, and, being dissolved, can no longer be felt. The method by excision is as follows: let the person to be made a eunuch be placed upon a bench, and the scrotum with the testicles grasped by the fingers of the left hand, and stretched; two straight incisions are then to be made with a scalpel, one in each testicle; and when the testicles start up they are to be dissected around and cut out, having merely left the very thin bond of connexion between the vessels in their natural state. This method is preferred to that by compression; for those who have had them squeezed sometimes still desire intercourse, a certain part, as it would appear, of the testicles having escaped the compression.48 In addition to indicating that there were two methods of castration (simple damaging and surgical removal of the testicles), Paul also reveals that in the Byzantine context the removal of the penis as well (penectomy) was not common. 30

CASTRATI ON

This perhaps explains why Liudprand of Cremona, when on embassy to the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII in 949–950, was so satisfied with the gift of four eunuchs known as carzimasians which he had brought for the emperor: these were eunuchs who were manufactured in the west by merchants in Verdun for the Spanish market, and had both testicles and penis removed.49 The fact that the Byzantines typically used the term ‘ektomias’ (meaning ‘cut’) for eunuch suggests that the excision method was more common. The existence of the compression method is testified to by other terms for eunuchs, such as ‘thlibias’ (from ‘to press’) and ‘thladias’ (from ‘to crush’), which were Greek words also utilised by the Romans.50 In more recent times another form of castration has developed: chemical castration.51 In this case the effect of male sex hormones (androgens, of which the most familiar is testosterone) is counteracted by the administration of drugs, such as antiandrogens. Chemical castration can be used in medical and punitive contexts, and is more acute than physical castration since the latter can leave some testosterone in the body, as it is not just produced by the testes. Not all eunuchs are deliberately created however. There are a number of other types of eunuch which need to be acknowledged. First of all, there are accidental eunuchs. An example of this category is Philetaerus, the Attalid dynast, who was supposedly crushed in a crowd when he was a child.52 He is not an isolated case. The later Roman commander Solomon who served under Justinian I was also said to have been made a eunuch unintentionally whilst still in his swaddling clothes.53 In both cases it seems accidental compression occurred. Later examples are met. In the context of the castrati, it seems that many of these supposedly became eunuchs due to accidents, such as being bitten by a wild boar or falling.54 Amongst the Skoptsy there were those who attributed their condition to misfortune: one asserted that he had been wounded in battle against Napoleon.55 Such stories seem to be cover stories for deliberate castration, as has been suspected in the case of Philetaerus. However it also seems likely that there were those whose genitals were damaged by accident. The example of soldiers is a case in point, and Pliny the Elder recognises that men’s testicles were vulnerable to incidental injury.56 Millant records the case of a man who in Paris in September 1907 castrated his own son because he thought he was having an incestuous relationship with his wife.57 More recently, there was reported on the BBC News website in 2005 the instance of a woman who in a rage ripped off her ex-boyfriend’s left testicle.58 There are also those who are congenital eunuchs, or, as acknowledged by Matt. 19.12, ‘born eunuchs’. A good example from the Roman world is the secondcentury AD Gallic sophist Favorinus of Arles.59 He is described by Philostratus as having been born double-natured, both man and woman, and exhibiting the characteristic eunuch features of a high voice and no beard.60 He also reports that Favorinus referred to himself as a eunuch in his declaration of the three paradoxes of his life: that although he was a Gaul he was hellenised, although he was a eunuch he had been tried for adultery, and although he had quarrelled with an emperor he was still alive. It is thought that Favorinus had undescended testes, or was born without them, and it has been suggested that he suffered from Reifenstein’s syndrome.61 The category of eunuchs by birth is referred to explicitly by Claudius 31

CASTRATI ON

Mamertinus in his panegyric on Julian.62 Born eunuchs are found elsewhere too. In the case of the castrati, there is a story that Balani had been born with an empty scrotum, but that later during his career as a castrato his testicles descended.63 Although this example may be doubted, it seems that the hijra community can include born eunuchs.64 Ancillon refers to a born eunuch that he had seen in Berlin in 1704, who was being toured round Europe by his parents to make money.65 The modern term to describe ‘born eunuchs’ is ‘intersexual’, though the older term ‘hermaphrodite’ is no doubt more familiar.66 Finally, even impotent men can be classed as eunuchs.67

Physical effects of castration Returning to the category of deliberately created eunuchs, the physical effects of the operation of castration need to be established. As Rousselle has observed, it is only those males who have been castrated prior to puberty that can be reckoned true eunuchs, for they have the classic physical features associated with the eunuch.68 The removal or crushing of the testes of young boys prevented the onset of puberty in later life given the consequent lack of production of sufficient male sex hormones. This condition is known in medical terminology as primary hypogonadism.69 The most famous physical attributes of the condition, apparent when the individual reached the age of maturity, were the absence of facial hair and the unbroken voice, as already observed in the case of Favorinus. The absence of the usual levels of hormones led to the non-appearance of secondary sexual characteristics. The voice remained high as the increase in the size of the membranous vocal cords due to the effect of male hormones did not occur.70 Other effects were the penis (in the cases where it was not removed too)71 remaining infantile in size, and the limbs becoming elongated.72 In addition, the skin is reputed to become pale and wrinkled.73 Body shape could be more akin to that of a female, due to the increased development of subcutaneous fat and fat deposits concentrated on the regions of the breasts, hips and buttocks brought about by the predominance of female hormones.74 The question of the physical effects of castration accounts for some the excitement that was exhibited when the body of Farinelli was exhumed in 2006 from his grave in Bologna for scientific research. This was to include the measuring of his bones, and the conducting of DNA tests.75 Thus there is no doubting that the eunuch who was created before puberty was physically distinctive. However not all males were castrated prior to the onset of puberty, and the physical effects in their case need to be treated separately. Castration after reaching adulthood is more usual in instances where the act is willingly embraced (for instance in a religious context: galli, early Christians, Skoptsy and hijras), or imposed as a form of punishment. It is commonly observed that in such instances castration does not result in the classic physical features of the eunuch as the body has already developed. Thus a post-pubertal eunuch would not be as visually obvious as a pre-pubertal eunuch. Beyond the physical effects the psychological and sexual consequences of castration for pre-pubertal and post-pubertal eunuchs are a source of interest but 32

CASTRATI ON

also of uncertainty. Penzer asserts that both those who were castrated as children and those who were castrated as adults suffer psychological trauma, as the latter can appreciate what they have lost, and the former would realise later what they had been deprived of.76 However, perhaps this is too much of a generalisation. As has been established, some males wanted to be castrated, so presumably they would not regret their action unless they changed their minds later. As for those castrated against their will, without good, personal documentary evidence one is forced to engage in conjecture. The impact of castration on the sex lives of individuals draws even more comment. Stories abound about the sexual activity of eunuchs. Juvenal extols the sexual value of a post-pubertal eunuch: his penis is developed, and there is (as usual with a eunuch) no risk of impregnation.77 In his treatise On the True Purity of Virginity Basil the fourth-century bishop of Ancyra (and one-time physician) warned virgins of the dangers of post-pubertal eunuchs, who still burn with desire but who do not have to worry about getting women pregnant.78 Also from late antiquity the monk Paul Helladicus relates in a letter the story of the eunuch monk Eutropius who desired his godson, to the extent that he ejaculated.79 Since Eutropius had originally worked in an elite household, having been the secretary of the distinguished Juliana Anicia, it is likely that he was a pre-pubertal eunuch. However, in his In Defence of Eunuchs Theophylact of Ochrid declared that such eunuchs did not suffer from nocturnal emissions, unlike uncastrated monks, though his assertion appears to be unusual.80 Reports are rife about the liaisons of the castrati, who had to be prepubertal eunuchs.81 Peschel and Peschel are sceptical about whether a castrato could have had sexual relations with a woman to the extent of consummation, but Barbier accepts that it was possible, though he warns of the dangers of generalisation. Contemporary inquiries into the Skoptsy also pondered the question of sexual desire.82 These could reach contradictory verdicts, from its complete absence to a strong presence, the latter echoing the view of Basil of Ancyra. No doubt the fact that there was a diversity of ages at which castration could occur amongst the Skoptsy, that there was a diversity in the degree to which the procedure could be performed, and that some male Skoptsy were not castrated at all, fed the uncertainty. Notably however, the medic Pelikan emphasised loss of desire. Attempts have been made in the twentieth century to establish more concrete information, though these have tended to focus on post-pubertal eunuchs, as pre-pubertal eunuchs became rarer with the decline of the phenomenon of castrati and court eunuchs.83 Tauber’s review found that the data gathered by others which he had to work with was not always clear, though he observed that the sexual effects of castration were not just physically determined; much depended on the circumstances of the individual. He was able to report however that subsequent to castration a ‘wide variety of sexual responses’ could occur. Interestingly, a study of Skoptsy that he reviews relates that a young man of twenty who had had his testes removed in his tenth year was able to achieve an erection. Wille and Beier’s study focused on castration in Germany, and also found diversity in the sexual consequences of castration. They assert that: Sexual interest, libido, erection, and ejaculation generally decreased in 75% of the cases within 6 months. Approximately 10% remained sexually active for 33

CASTRATI ON

years on a slightly diminished level, whereas 15% reported sexual outlets over a longer period of time, but they required more intensive stimulation for sexual release. It is clear, then, that even in the modern world the quality of information can be unsatisfactory,84 but that all those who are castrated are not necessarily affected with regard to sexual activity in the same way. The assertion that prepubertal eunuchs had next to no sex drive, whilst post-pubertal eunuchs found theirs much reduced or absent, though they could (if they has a penis) experience erections and ejaculations,85 can be accepted in broad terms with the proviso that there is variety.86 Perhaps this can be accounted for by the different levels of testosterone that could exist in an individual after castration. It should also be acknowledged that in modern times surgical castration can be supplemented by hormone treatment. For instance, adult men who desire castration but wish to remain sexually active can administer testosterone,87 and Nanda encountered a hijra who was increasing her feminisation by taking female hormones.88 Thus the natural effects of castration can be chemically reduced or enhanced. Finally, it should also be appreciated that even if eunuchs were not sexually potent they could still have value as sexual partners.89

Ideological effects of castration Castration did not just produce physical effects however; it also had an impact on how eunuchs were thought about in terms of gender and character. For instance, Millant observes that most modern writers agree that ‘le castrat est un être dégradé au moral comme il l’est au physique, et la duplicité, les instincts sanguinaires, la lâcheté et la jalousie constituent le fond même de son tempérament’ (though he does seems more open minded himself, and is of the opinion that eunuchs must be judged as individuals and that their circumstances must be taken into account).90 Ideas about the gender and character of eunuchs will be explored further in subsequent chapters, but this chapter will conclude with some initial comment on these ideological effects. In terms of gender, the fact of castration could result in eunuchs being thought of as akin to women. This is particularly clear in the Greco-Roman medical tradition, especially the writings associated with Aristotle.91 In ancient Greece there were thought to be oppositional differences between the bodies of men and women, expressed in the terms used to describe them: men’s bodies were hot and dry, whilst women’s were cold and damp.92 In his Generation of Animals, Aristotle explicitly states that eunuchs are transformed by mutilation into the female state.93 This is made clear also when he seeks to explain why men can go bald, but women, children and eunuchs do not. He writes: For human beings . . . it is the seasons of life which play the part of summer and winter; and that is why no one goes bald before the time of sexual intercourse, and also why that is the time when those who are naturally prone 34

CASTRATI ON

to intercourse go bald. The reason is that the effect of sexual intercourse is to cool, as it is the excretion of some of the pure, natural heat, and the brain is by its nature the coldest part of the body; thus . . . it is the first to feel the effect . . . Women do not go bald because their nature is similar to that of children: both are incapable of producing seminal secretion. Eunuchs, too, do not go bald, because of their transition into the female state, and the hair that comes at a later stage they fail to grow at all, or if they have it already, they lose it, except for the pubic hair: similarly, women do not have the later hair, though they do grow the pubic hair. This deformity constitutes a change from the male state to the female.94 This identification of eunuchs with women could also be expressed in Roman thought, such as Catullus’ poem on Attis; once this gallus has become castrated he is no longer termed a ‘he’ but a ‘she’.95 The view that eunuchs were feminised had consequences for how they were expected to act. They are attributed with behaviour that was typically associated with women. This leads one into the arena of the character of eunuchs, and other strong opinions about this stemmed from the fact that they could not have offspring. One such opinion was that eunuchs were devoted to the accumulation of money for themselves, as they did not have children to bequeath it to. They were in effect greedy.96 This view had a very long history, being met in the late Roman history of Ammianus Marcellinus97 as well as in beliefs about the Skoptsy.98 Interestingly enough, in the Greco-Roman world, the eunuch seems to have been associated with the role of treasurer. The Attalid Philetaerus had been entrusted by king Lysimachus with the fortress of Pergamum which housed a store of wealth, while Lysimachus was reputedly angered by a rival king’s description of him as a treasurer as it tarred him with the brush of being a eunuch.99 In the later Roman period, eunuchs were still found in the role of treasurer (sacellarius), such as Narses, more famous for his victories over the Goths.100 The role persisted in Byzantium; the eunuch Leo, responsible for the Leo Bible, was a sakellarios.101

Conclusion Castration is central to a consideration of eunuchs, but it is a subject whose study is problematic. Information on the operation can be lacking, and the degree and effects of castration could vary. Further, the relatively recent developments of chemical castration, and chemical treatments associated with castration, have contributed a whole new dimension to the subject. What is clear is that it has been prevalent throughout human history for a variety of reasons, not just the deliberate creation of eunuchs. It is also evident that the subject of castration provokes strong reactions, and not just to the operation itself but to the products of the operation. All these factors must be borne in mind when trying to understand the phenomenon of the eunuch.

35

4 T HE COURT EUNU CHS OF T HE LATER ROM A N EM PI RE

Introduction One of the distinguishing features of the later Roman empire is the institutionalisation of eunuchs at the imperial court. This development was especially commented upon by many fourth-century writers, and is reflected by the careers of several prominent grand chamberlains, such as Eusebius and Eutropius. This chapter will trace the phenomenon across the span of late antiquity (fourth to sixth centuries AD), but will be particularly concerned to examine why court eunuchs became such a feature of the Roman empire in this period. Several theories have already been propounded, and these will be reviewed and assessed before a final conclusion is reached.

The court eunuchs of late antiquity As has been seen, Roman emperors who ruled before the fourth century AD were not unfamiliar with the eunuch.1 The imperial household, just like other elite households, could count eunuch slaves amongst its staff. In late antiquity however, it is commonly accepted that the eunuch became an institutional feature of the court.2 Eunuchs formed a distinctive group continuously employed by the emperors. They are usually categorised as chamberlains (cubicularii), having at their head the grand chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi).3 As a group and as individuals court eunuchs are credited by late antique sources with having political power, both through influence with Roman emperors and through execution of their duties. One of the most striking depictions of the position and power of eunuchs at the later Roman court is the account of the regime of Constantius II (337–361 AD) by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus.4 Although he produced his history at the end of the fourth century, Ammianus had lived through Constantius’ reign as an active participant in military and political affairs, being an officer under the general Ursicinus. He devotes much attention to Eusebius, grand chamberlain of the emperor.5 The eunuch’s leading role in the government, and his influence with Constantius and his fellow officials, are clearly established. Eusebius was a key figure in warning the emperor about the dangers posed by powerful individuals, 36

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

such as the general Ursicinus and the Caesar Gallus, and in effecting action against them.6 Such was the importance of Eusebius at court that other officials sought his favour and aimed to please him.7 The leading place of the eunuch in Constantius’ reign is revealed by the fact that after the death of Constantius, Eusebius was involved in discussions about who should be the next emperor, as well as by his execution under the succeeding emperor Julian (361–363), who initiated trials of leading officials of the previous regime.8 When recording the grand chamberlain’s fate Ammianus reflects upon the degree of power he attained under Constantius, and asserts that his authority had been almost on a par with the emperor’s.9 The general presence of eunuchs at Constantius’ court, and their influence, are also conveyed by the historian, who can identify them explicitly as eunuchs or as chamberlains. He records that they were able to save the chamberlain Gorgonius from punishment; to effect the dropping of a case against the master of cavalry Arbitio; and to turn Constantius against Ursicinus.10 Although Ammianus is particularly concerned to describe the power that eunuchs held under Constantius as part of his deliberate denigration of that emperor and his concomitant idolisation of Ursicinus and Julian,11 he nevertheless indicates that eunuchs were a general feature of the later Roman imperial world. As Caesars both Gallus and Julian had their own grand chamberlains, Gorgonius and Eutherius respectively, the latter having entered the imperial palace under Constantine the Great (306–337) and having already served Constans (337–350).12 Chamberlains are recorded as attending upon Valentinian I (364–375), whilst eunuchs are explicitly mentioned as an aspect of the court of his brother Valens (364–378).13 A host of other fourth-century writers reinforce the impressions that eunuchs were a staple part of the later Roman court and that they were a potent force. In his account of the grisly fates of those emperors who had persecuted Christians and of the altered religious climate under Constantine and Licinius in the 310s, Lactantius mentions briefly but dramatically the court eunuchs.14 Describing the measures Diocletian (284–305) took within his own household, Lactantius reports that these included the execution of the eunuchs, despite the fact that they ‘had once enjoyed great power’ and that ‘Diocletian and the whole palace had depended’ on them. Similarly concise but significant comment comes from the Antiochene sophist Libanius when he relates Julian’s reform of the court after his accession in 361. The emperor divested the palace of what he regarded as unnecessary personnel, and this included the eunuchs who ‘exceeded in number the flies around the flocks in spring’.15 Other fourth-century texts reveal more sustained concern with eunuchs. A prime example is the infamous Historia Augusta.16 This is a collection of biographies of the emperors from Hadrian (117–138) to Carinus (283–285), purporting to have been written by a variety of individuals in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. However, it is usually thought that the lives were the work of a single individual who produced them later in the fourth century, or even in the early fifth century.17 The historical value of the text is thus questioned. With regard to its preoccupation with court eunuchs, the remarks on this topic are concentrated in the biography of Severus Alexander (222–235), although they 37

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

surface also in the lives of Heliogabalus (218–222) and Gordian III (238–244). The thrust of the comments is to condemn the influence of eunuchs at the Roman court and to praise those emperors who acted to stem it. Severus Alexander is greatly commended for his undoing of the position and power eunuchs had achieved at court under his predecessor. Heliogabalus is dismissed as the slave of his eunuchs, under whom they acquired important office and influence.18 Severus is reported to have limited the use of eunuchs at court to the more traditional role of attendance upon women, and to have given others away to his friends.19 He was adamant that they should not exercise political power as they had done during the previous regime.20 Gordian III is also lauded for addressing the problem of the court eunuchs.21 Given the nature of the Historia Augusta it has been argued that these details about court eunuchs from the reigns of Heliogabalus, Severus Alexander and Gordian should not be taken as historical reality. Rather, it is said, they should be understood as reflecting the conditions of the empire in the fourth century, when eunuchs had become a significant powerful presence at the court, a situation some emperors did indeed oppose.22 This interpretation is supported by the fact that the author at times intrudes, providing personal opinion or comments about ‘contemporary’ affairs. In the biography of Severus Alexander he cautiously acknowledges that the emperor for whom he is writing (supposedly Constantine) had at first depended greatly on his eunuchs but then limited their authority.23 In his life of Aurelian (270–275) he considers what constitutes a bad emperor, and lists avaricious eunuchs as one factor.24 Thus the author of the Historia Augusta takes for granted that he lives in a world where court eunuchs existed and could attain influence and power. One further text is worth mentioning, Claudian’s first invective against the eunuch Eutropius.25 The Alexandrian poet wrote this in 399 when Eutropius, the grand chamberlain of the emperor Arcadius (395–408), was holding the traditional Roman distinction of the consulship.26 The work was produced in the context of political tension between the courts of Arcadius and his brother Honorius (395–423), the former based in the east at Constantinople and the latter in the west in Italy. As both emperors were youths, power lay more with their right-hand men. In the east Eutropius had gained this position, while in the west it was filled by the general Stilicho. Claudian had acquired the role of ‘court poet’ of the western court, and as such his literary assault on Eutropius exemplifies the political competition that existed between the two courts.27 Although Claudian’s attack focuses on an individual it nonetheless conveys the power and status that court eunuchs could attain in the empire. It sketches Eutropius’ career as a slave prior to his entry into imperial service, and details his activities and power as an imperial agent. This included a military role, as he led a campaign against the Huns.28 The eunuch’s holding of the consulship indicates his political significance, and seems to have been the factor that provoked the invective, as Claudian opens it by dwelling on this development as an outrageous portent.29 The overall impression that one is left with by the poet is that Eutropius was in fact ruling the eastern empire. The texts considered above reveal that in the fourth century eunuchs were a regular feature of the later Roman court and that they could attain political power. 38

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

They also indicate that there could be hostile reaction to this situation. The depth this hatred could plumb only reinforces the impression of the significance of the court eunuchs within the apparatus of imperial government. The Historia Augusta maintains that some emperors sought to limit the presence and influence of eunuchs at the court. The most famous example of an emperor who pursued such goals is Julian (361–363). This is widely commented on by the sources for the reign, including the writings of Julian himself. The motive given tends to be the emperor’s rationalisation of the numerous court personnel for economic reasons,30 but the undertaking has an element of commenting on the nature of the previous regime. Julian observes that under Constantius the word eunuch was often mentioned and honoured, but that under him it is utilised as injurious and as a reproach.31 In a speech praising Julian, Claudius Mamertinus, one of the consuls for 362, recalls the distasteful situation that had existed during the reign of Constantius II, whereby members of the elite seeking office had had to ingratiate themselves with the court eunuchs due to their favour with the emperor.32 One thinks immediately of the grand chamberlain Eusebius, and it may be that Julian was spurred on in his actions by his dislike of this particular eunuch. He certainly blamed Eusebius to an extent for his bad relations with Constantius, and the eunuch had played a part in the downfall of Julian’s half-brother Gallus. The grand chamberlain was one of the prime victims of the trials held at Chalcedon at the start of Julian’s reign. Another fourth-century emperor who reputedly took a stand against powerful court eunuchs is Magnus Maximus (383–387). A military man who came to power through the acclamation of his troops in Britain, Maximus managed to establish himself as a significant player in the west. It is recorded however that he refused to have eunuchs as guardians of his court, and that his chamberlain was not a eunuch but an old man who had attended him from his youth.33 Thus it is clear that the hostile sentiment expressed towards court eunuchs could be mirrored by the actions of some emperors. However, as Guyot observes, there were limits to their dispensing with eunuchs.34 Despite his antagonistic attitude towards eunuchs Julian seems to have had good relations with some of them. Most famous is the case of Mardonius, who taught Julian as a young boy, and who is attributed with imbuing him with his love of Hellenic culture and of Homer in particular.35 Of course Mardonius was not a court eunuch, but there is the case of Eutherius, who was Julian’s grand chamberlain during his Caesarship in Gaul. This eunuch appears to have rendered Julian good service, notably acting as ambassador to Constantius twice, in 357 and 360.36 It is usually thought that Eutherius remained on good terms with Julian after his accession to sole power, and Guyot also notes that another eunuch was active under him too. Woods has questioned both these assumptions, but he still supports the general conclusion of Guyot that court eunuchs did not completely disappear during Julian’s reign by adducing evidence from Libanius.37 As for Magnus Maximus, despite his reported proclamation, when Ambrose the bishop of Milan went to Trier in 387 to visit the emperor he encountered a grand chamberlain who was a eunuch.38 It seems then that even those emperors who took a strong stance against court 39

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

eunuchs could not dispense with their services altogether. The emperor praised by the Historia Augusta for clamping down on the influence of the eunuchs did not remove them from the court altogether.39 This further intensifies the conclusion that eunuchs were a consistent and expected feature of the later Roman court in the fourth century despite the evidence of some concern about the power they could achieve. The fact that eunuchs continue to be found as key court personnel in the fifth and sixth centuries shows that the tradition of the court eunuch had been fully embraced in the Roman empire. Several eunuchs were particularly prominent under Theodosius II (408–450). An important role was played by the Persian eunuch Antiochus early in the reign.40 Antiochus had been a cubicularius under Arcadius, and was tutor to the emperor’s son Theodosius. When Theodosius became emperor himself the eunuch became his grand chamberlain. The chronicler Malalas reports that Antiochus was so powerful that he controlled affairs but that Theodosius eventually became irked with him and forced him to become a monk and a priest, though it is possible that the eunuch was the victim of jockeying for power at court.41 More memorable is the eunuch Chrysaphius, who in 449 devised a plot to assassinate Attila the Hun.42 Chrysaphius was a dominant figure in the last decade of the reign of Theodosius, though he is not recorded as holding the office of praepositus sacri cubiculi, but is described as a spatharius and cubicularius.43 Malalas attributes his influence with the emperor to the fact that Theodosius lusted after the eunuch who was exceedingly good-looking.44 Another well-known Theodosian grand chamberlain is Lausus. He owes his fame not to his political role but to the fact that he commissioned the collection of stories about Christian holy men and women known as the Lausiac History.45 However, it should be noted that no contemporary source explicitly identifies Lausus as a eunuch. Although eunuchs are particularly associated with the court of Theodosius II they were evidently a common general feature of the imperial court.46 For instance Anastasius I (491–518) had as grand chamberlain Amantius.47 On Anastasius’ death the eunuch planned to arrange the accession of an ally, but was executed by the eventual successor Justin I (518–527).48 Under Justinian I (527–565) one of the most famous court eunuchs is encountered, Narses.49 A eunuch of Armenian extraction, Narses was a cubicularius who rendered the emperor good service. In 532 as spatharius he assisted in the suppression of the Nika riot in Constantinople,50 and was later entrusted with the war against the Goths in Italy, which he brought to a successful conclusion.51 In the course of his career Narses also served as treasurer and grand chamberlain.52 The eunuchs Euphratas and Callinicus also distinguished themselves in Justinian’s reign. Euphratas is described by the historian Procopius as the leader of the court eunuchs and as an Abasgian, and he relates how the eunuch was charged by the emperor to go to Abasgia to tell the kings of the country to give up the practice of castrating their subjects and selling them to the Romans.53 As for Callinicus, he was the emperor’s grand chamberlain, and is touchingly celebrated in an epigram by Leontius Scholasticus.54 He also played a crucial part in the accession of Justin II (565–578), Justinian’s nephew and successor.55 40

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

To appreciate the significance of court eunuchs in the later Roman empire it is instructive to consult also documentary evidence which sheds light on their social status. For instance, surviving Roman legislation indicates the rank that grand chamberlains attained.56 By the late fourth century three court ranks were available to leading officials. These were, in descending order, illustris (illustrious), spectabilis (respectable) and clarissimus (most distinguished), the latter being the old title denoting senatorial rank. From at least AD 384 grand chamberlains counted amongst the illustres.57 In AD 422 a law concerning grand chamberlains was issued by Honorius and Theodosius II, declaring that those who held the office were to have the same rank as praetorian prefects, city prefects and masters of soldiers.58 This law reflects the fact that the rank of illustris had been subdivided, but now grand chamberlains were to belong to the upper order. Beyond legislation another revealing source is the Notitia Dignitatum, a document dating to the late fourth or early fifth centuries which details the civil and military offices of both the eastern and western halves of the empire.59 Despite the problematic nature of the text it does reveal the status of the office of praepositus sacri cubiculi. In the eastern list the grand chamberlain is ranked after the praetorian prefects, the prefect of the city of Constantinople and the masters of soldiers, whilst in the western list he is ranked after the praetorian prefects, the prefect of the city of Rome, the master of infantry and the masters of cavalry.60 The Notitia Dignitatum also records that the grand chamberlain of the east held the rank of illustris.61 Other honours eunuchs could achieve were count, patrician and consul, though infamously Eutropius was the only eunuch to attain this latter distinction.62 Before turning to the consideration of why court eunuchs were such a feature of the later Roman empire it will be useful to make some further observations. A fundamental aspect deserving comment is the power of the court eunuchs, especially the grand chamberlains. Attempts have been made to analyse the remit of this office,63 but the key factor explaining its political significance, and that of court eunuchs generally, is access to the emperor.64 Court eunuchs were a privileged group as they had regular personal contact with the emperor, given the domestic context of their duties. This allowed for the possibility of the exertion of influence, a fact recognised by contemporaries. For instance, Ammianus comments on the opportunity the court eunuchs had to blacken Ursicinus to Constantius, Malalas emphasises Chrysaphius’ free access (PARRHS‰A) to Theodosius II, and Leontius Scholasticus conveys the intimacy that Callinicus enjoyed with Justinian.65 This factor also made other members of society value court eunuchs as a means of reaching the ear of the emperor, thus further enhancing their power.66 Thus far this chapter has concentrated mainly on the office of grand chamberlain and the general group of cubicularii, but it is worth mentioning that other specific offices existed too. These are generally considered as the subordinate personnel of the grand chamberlain.67 Amongst these officials were the primicerius sacri cubiculi (superintendent of the sacred bedchamber), the castrensis sacri palatii (steward of the sacred palace), the comes domorum per Cappadociam (count of 41

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

the imperial estates in Cappadocia), and the comes sacrae vestis (count of the sacred wardrobe). These offices are first encountered at various dates across the fourth and fifth centuries, so it seems that there was evolution of the system of offices over time. It should be noted however that not all of these offices were necessarily held by eunuchs. For instance, the first eunuch known to have held the office of castrensis was Amantius, who was the castrensis of the empress Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, and the first castrensis to be identified as a cubicularius.68 It is clear however that as with the position of grand chamberlain these other offices could bring the holder social status. The Notitia Dignitatum lists the primicerius sacri cubiculi and the castrensis sacri palatii as spectabiles.69 In addition to these offices eunuchs are met as chief bodyguard (spatharius) and treasurer, as has been seen already. Finally, it is worth stressing that eunuchs were not just a feature of the later Roman courts of the east, but were also found at the western courts.70 Despite the orientalist tone of Claudian’s invectives against Eutropius, it is clear that in the later Roman empire court eunuchs were an imperial phenomenon, not an oriental one. When the emperor Constantius II resided in the west in the first half of the 350s, mainly at Milan, he had his grand chamberlain Eusebius with him. As Caesar in the west Julian had Eutherius as his grand chamberlain, and the eunuch had already served Constans in the west. Magnus Maximus’ reaction against court eunuchs was clearly unusual, and not sustained anyway. Gratian (367–383) and Valentinian II (375–392), like their father Valentinian I, employed eunuchs at court.71 The eunuchs Arsacius and Terentius rendered Honorius (395–423) good service by escorting Eucherius, the son of Stilicho, to Rome and having him executed there. Terentius was rewarded with the office of praepositus sacri cubiculi, and Arsacius was appointed as his deputy.72 The usurper Constantine sent eunuchs on a diplomatic mission to Honorius.73 As has been seen, the Notitia Dignitatum indicates that there was a western grand chamberlain as well as an eastern one, and it is reported that in 454 Valentinian III (425–455) murdered the general Aetius with the assistance of his chief eunuch.74 Less dramatically, there is also met Acolius, the praepositus sacri cubiculi of Valentinian III.75 Even after the ‘fall’ of the Roman empire in the west, the tradition of the office of the grand chamberlain and the court eunuch was kept alive into the sixth century by the Romanised Ostrogothic regime of Theoderic (493–526), based at the north Italian city of Ravenna.76 An inscription records the existence of Seda, the eunuch and cubicularius of Theoderic.77 Theoderic’s praepositus cubiculi, Triwila, is also encountered.78

Why court eunuchs? The first section of this chapter has established the important position acquired and maintained by eunuchs under later Roman emperors. I will now turn to a consideration of why this should be so. This question has universal application for the use of eunuchs by royal or imperial courts, and diverse explanations have been suggested by historians. One of the simplest theories for the utilisation 42

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

of eunuchs by rulers is that it was a development of their role as guardians of women.79 Since eunuchs were thought to be safe men to have around women (or at least it was realised that they could not get them pregnant) this function was considered appropriate to them. Notably, courts which featured harems could also be distinguished by their more general use of eunuchs, such as the Chinese and Ottoman cases.80 Even in Roman society the idea that eunuchs were suitable attendants for women is found. Terence’s play The Eunuch (161 BC) features the eunuch Dorus who is to be gifted to the household of the courtesan Thais.81 Dorus’ place is taken by the non-eunuch Chaerea, who is thus able to gain access to a young girl Pamphila, whom he rapes. In the imperial period, Plautianus the praetorian prefect of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211) reputedly castrated 100 noble Roman citizens to serve his daughter Plautilla as attendants and teachers.82 In the later Roman empire elite women, including empresses, were typically in the company of eunuchs.83 Jerome’s famous Letter 22 to Eustochium on virginity refers to a Roman matron giving money to the poor in St Peter’s, and describes her as being accompanied by her eunuchs (‘semiviris’).84 Julian’s mother Basilina was taught by the eunuch Mardonius, and the empress Eusebia communicated with Julian through her eunuchs.85 Whether eunuchs came to fill roles as servants and officials of men, and to operate in the male arena of power, simply due to an expansion of their duties beyond the female sphere, can be debated however.86 Such was their importance to male rulers that it is unlikely that they procured this position indirectly. In the case of the later Roman empire it seems telling that the empress only acquired a grand chamberlain of her own in the fifth century: the direction of borrowing was from male to female.87 Even if eunuchs first entered courts and palaces to attend upon women, it is clear that kings and emperors found them indispensable for other reasons. The concomitant view that it was only ‘weak’ male rulers who had to depend on eunuchs, while ‘strong’ male rulers could dispense with them, had its followers in the past, and has been satisfactorily rejected.88 ‘Strong’ emperors were just as likely to use eunuchs, and eunuch power is institutional rather than just depending on the circumstance of character. Certainly, historians have sought alternative explanations for the employment of eunuchs by rulers. In his investigation of eunuchs in Islam, Ayalon asserts that it is the trustworthiness of eunuchs that made them so prized by rulers.89 He declares that this quality ‘constituted the very foundation of their success in Islamic and in other civilizations’. Interestingly, he is led to this conclusion not just by the record of the deeds of eunuchs in the Islamic world, but by the observations of ancient Greek authors, Herodotus in particular but also Xenophon. Herodotus is notable for his appreciation of the positive value of eunuchs to the Persian kings as faithful and loyal servants. In the course of relating the revenge of the eunuch Hermotimus against the man who castrated him he observes that eunuchs are thought by the ‘barbarians’ to be especially trustworthy.90 Ayalon also cites Xenophon’s presentation of the motives of Cyrus the Great (560/59–530 BC) for employing eunuchs in his service.91 Their faithfulness is the crucial factor, but unlike Herodotus Xenophon explains why eunuchs were thought to possess this attribute.92 They would be devoted to the king because they had no other 43

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

relationships (such as with children or wives) to invest in, and also because other members of society were hostile to them since they were eunuchs.93 The king offered them rewards and protection, and they repaid him with utter loyalty. The trustworthiness of eunuchs also raises itself in more modern contexts: it has been suggested that the appeal of hijras as MPs is their ‘lack of family connections’, a solution to the usual ‘nepotism and corruption’.94 In the case of the later Roman empire, the belief that eunuchs were well-disposed resulted in another etymology for ‘eunuch’, asserted by Epiphanius the bishop of Salamis in his Panarion, a treatise against heresies written in the late fourth century AD.95 Strong relationships between later Roman emperors and their chief eunuchs did indeed develop, witness the examples of Constantius II and Eusebius, Arcadius and Eutropius, Theodosius II and Chrysaphius, and Justinian and Callinicus. The fact that some eunuchs were executed by the subsequent regime after the death of ‘their’ emperor further suggests the unity that could exist between ruler and servant.96 It is perhaps significant that even in the case of the castrati, these singers could undertake missions for leading individuals, and acquire political significance. For instance, Atto Melani was made Gentleman of the Bedchamber in Paris, having been Cardinal Mazarin’s secret agent, and Farinelli not only sang at the Spanish court but played political and administrative roles, and was honoured as Commander of the Order of Calatrava.97 As Xenophon indicates, however, the loyalty of eunuchs to rulers was due largely to their social isolation: in effect they had no other option. Thus the devotion they displayed was a rational response to their situation rather than an inherent positive quality. Further, a contrasting concept of eunuchs could exist. Treacherous eunuchs feature in Ctesias’ account of Persian history, as well as loyal ones.98 Especially memorable is the plot of the eunuch Artoxares to replace Darius II (423–405/4) as king, to which end he had a false beard and moustache manufactured for himself so that he could pass as a whole man.99 Whether this story is true or not, it raises the fact that contradictory ideas about eunuchs co-existed: they could be idealised as loyal servants but also demonised as treacherous traitors.100 The latter characterisation may be extreme, but it is clear that court eunuchs could pursue agendas of their own. A dramatic instance is the case of Samonas the Arab, chief eunuch of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (886–912), who attempted to fly the empire and return to his homeland.101 Even in Herodotus there is an example of a eunuch who looks to his own interests, seizing the chance to flee with a fortune.102 A Hellenistic case is provided by Philetaerus, who was entrusted with Pergamum and its treasury by Lysimachus but went on to carve out a power base for himself.103 Despite his insistence on trustworthiness explaining the value of court eunuchs, Ayalon realised that the actions of some Islamic eunuchs did not support this conclusion.104 He chose, however, to view lapses of loyalty as rare. As Xenophon indicates, a factor in the assumed trustworthiness of eunuchs was that they had no wives, lovers or children of their own. Historians have identified a further element contributing to the social isolation of court eunuchs: they were slaves or servants of foreign extraction.105 This is most clear in the case of Islamic court eunuchs, especially those of the Ottoman empire. Since the Prophet had 44

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

forbidden castration, the only acceptable source of eunuchs was from non-Muslim lands. This is most evident in the use of black eunuchs by the Ottoman sultans, made infamous by orientalist paintings of the harem which have contributed to the image of the eunuch in popular imagination.106 Less well known, perhaps, is that the Ottoman court also employed white eunuchs.107 The Ottoman case exemplifies the general fact that in Islamic states court eunuchs tended to be ethnic outsiders.108 Considering the value of employing foreign eunuchs, Ayalon observes that they were not able to have their own families (thus their loyalty was not divided), and they could not form their own dynasties.109 Equally, in the later Roman empire, there was an abhorrence of the castration of the native population but an acceptance that foreigners could fill the role of court eunuch. Constantine I (306–337) ruled that eunuchs were not to be created within the Roman empire, and Leo I (457–474) later identified the tolerated source of eunuchs, the importation of castrated barbarians.110 In the fourth century the Roman grammarian Aelius Donatus asserted that in the east eunuchs came from Armenia, and in the sixth century the historian Procopius declared that during the reign of Justinian I most eunuchs at the imperial court in Constantinople had their origins in Abasgia, on the eastern shore of the Black Sea.111 Foreign eunuchs are also found at the Chinese court. Tsai notes that under the Ming dynasty they were supplied from Annam and Korea, and observes that there were ‘compelling reasons for placing eunuchs from outside races and tribes in positions of trust, because one of the major concerns of the emperor was the security of the imperial line. The best way to preserve it and keep court secrets was to use foreign-born eunuchs’.112 On the face of it, then, it looks as if rulers valued using court eunuchs who were foreign as this enhanced their social isolation and thus their dependability. However, not every empire which featured court eunuchs made exclusive use of foreigners. In China castrated outsiders may have served at court, but there was a significant domestic supply of eunuchs.113 The Byzantine empire also witnessed the utilisation of home-grown eunuchs.114 For instance, Constantine the Paphlagonian, chief eunuch at the court in the early tenth century, is an example of an apparently typical native supply.115 Even in Islamic states Muslim eunuchs could be found, and the regular reiteration of Roman law against the castration of Romans suggests that the imperial will was not being heeded.116 Notably Aelius Donatus also asserts in his commentary on Terence’s play The Eunuch that most eunuchs in the west were from Gaul.117 The extreme emphasis on foreign eunuchs in the cases of Rome and Muslim powers may have owed more to the rejection of castrated natives than to the perceived benefits of having court eunuchs who were ethnic outsiders. Castration was associated with slavery and the undermining of masculine power. The hostile image of court eunuchs that could exist in late Roman sources was bound up with their identity as slaves.118 The view that court eunuchs were socially isolated also requires further reflection. Marriage was in fact a possibility for some eunuchs. This is most apparent in the case of Chinese eunuchs.119 Jay is able to assert ‘The strength of the family among eunuchs debunks the myth and the rationale of the employment of eunuchs at court on the premise that eunuchs had no family ties that would 45

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

jeopardize their loyalty to the emperor’.120 This attachment to family went beyond marriage, extending to children (by blood in the case of those who became eunuchs after having had offspring, by marriage or by adoption) and to other relatives, such as nephews.121 The possibility of taking wives and maintaining and supporting kin can be seen in other cultures.122 Ayalon notes that married eunuchs can be encountered in Islamic states, that they could acquire children if the wife already had her own, and that they could have children of their own if they had had them before being castrated.123 It is worth recalling the Hellenistic example of the Attalid dynast Philetaerus, who was able to bequeath his nascent kingdom to his nephew Eumenes, whom he had adopted as his son.124 This makes one think of Hermias of Atarneus who adopted his niece Pythias as his daughter (she married Aristotle).125 Although Byzantium firmly rejected marriage for eunuchs, the fact that natives served as court eunuchs allowed for family relationships to remain significant and to be developed.126 Probably the most famous illustration is centred on the figure of John the orphanotrophos, a powerful court eunuch in the eleventh century.127 Two of his brothers were also eunuchs, and another brother and a nephew became emperors, Michael IV (1034–1041) and Michael V (1041–1042) respectively. The possibility of adoption was also open to Byzantine eunuchs, at least from the reign of Leo VI (886–912).128 An intriguing family relationship between court eunuchs is found in Ctesias’ Persica, for he alleges that the eunuch Izabates was able to assist his master Cambyses’ plans for the conquest of Egypt through his contact with Kombaphis, court eunuch of the Egyptian king Amyrtaeus, and cousin (ÐNECIOQ) of Izabates.129 The accuracy of these details has however been questioned.130 Information about late Roman court eunuchs also serves to problematise the assumption of social isolation. In his invectives on the grand chamberlain Eutropius, Claudian alludes to the sister of the eunuch, whom he also labels as Eutropius’ spouse.131 This individual seems to have been a significant figure, for she received Eutropius’ report on his campaign against the Huns, threw banquets for matrons, acted as her husband’s sounding board and was entrusted by him with palace security. Long suggests that this person may have been Eutropius’ real sister, or ‘a subintroducta, a woman brought into his household in a chaste union sometimes compared to sisterhood’.132 Whatever the truth about the relationship, it nevertheless reveals that court eunuchs could have important social contact beyond that with the emperor. In the sixth century the chamberlains John and Theodore, who served Justinian I, were brothers.133 Also in the sixth century under Justinian, the sacellarius Rusticus had a brother John.134 Whether John, Theodore and Rusticus were eunuchs, however, is open to doubt. In the fifth century there is an example of a court eunuch creating a familial relationship: Acolius the grand chamberlain of Valentinian III had a male foster child (alumnus).135 Cases from the sixth century demonstrate the existence of other family attachments. The nephews of Justinian’s eunuch general Solomon achieved military careers too.136 Solomon perhaps presents an unusual example, as he was an accidental eunuch,137 but also from the reign of Justinian is the instance of the chief eunuch Euphratas, who died intestate but whose nephew could claim to be his lawful heir.138 It seems that eunuchs had had the right to 46

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

make wills since the reign of Constantius II, which suggests that they were expected to have relationships with other individuals in society whom they would wish to benefit on their deaths.139 Given the power and roles beyond the court confines that eunuchs could attain, it is probably to be expected that they would not be socially isolated.140 It is illuminating that Chrysaphius was the godson of the abbot Eutyches.141 One also thinks of the case of the eunuch John, who was the godfather of Peter the Iberian, and eventually became a monk with his godson.142 Thus there could exist for court eunuchs social outlets beyond the relationship with the king or emperor. A further general explanation for the employment of eunuchs by royal or imperial courts is provided by Wittfogel in his comparative study of oriental despotism.143 Discussing especially the Chinese and Byzantine cases, Wittfogel understands the use of political eunuchs as a ‘method of strengthening the ruler’s autocratic grip on his officials’.144 In effect, the utilisation of castrated agents of low social origins created a useful check on the power of the traditional elite: the eunuchs formed an alternative power base. He observes ‘As elsewhere the political eunuchs of Byzantium constituted an entirely trustworthy control group within the absolutist bureaucracy’.145 Wittfogel also asserts that ‘political eunuchs were of no great importance in conquest societies’, that is they were valued rather by autocratic regimes which had to control native officials and subjects.146 The attraction of the explanation offered by Wittfogel for the appeal of eunuchs to rulers is that it offers a concrete political motivation. Notably the interpretation finds support in Tsai’s study of the court eunuchs of the Ming dynasty.147 Tsai argues that the Ming emperors benefited from employing eunuchs at court as they provided a counterbalance to the power of the traditional Confucian elite, whose hostility to this alternative group is so familiar from their writings. However, rather than idealising the relationship between the ruler and his eunuchs as Wittfogel did, Tsai considers that the ruler is only thinking of himself: ‘both the literati-officials and the eunuchs were really the pawns of the colossal Ming institutions and absolutism’.148 What existed was a ‘dualistic system’, which aided the emperor rather than his officials.149 In addition to his belief in the trustworthiness of eunuchs, gained from reading Herodotus and Xenophon, Wittfogel’s attachment of importance to their social isolation is questionable.150 Also problematic is his view that conquest societies lacked political eunuchs. He has to explain away the Abbasid use of eunuchs, and his opinion that the Umayyad caliphate did not feature them can be debated.151 Finally, Wittfogel raises the question of why eunuchs were used at all, thus undercutting his own explanation. He remarks that slaves and ex-slaves could have performed the same function for rulers, and proceeds to opine that these ‘may fulfill their purpose even more effectively, since their more normal physique makes them seem more suitable to represent the despot’s authority everywhere’.152 One cannot help but feel that Wittfogel has not got to grips with what it was about eunuchs that appealed to rulers. The above consideration of the theories propounded to explain the general historical phenomenon of court eunuchs has demonstrated the difficulties in providing a satisfying answer. It is possible that different courts had different 47

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

motivations, so the specific case of the late Roman court will now be examined in isolation. The leading attempt to understand why court eunuchs became such a feature of the later Roman empire has been undertaken by Hopkins.153 He identifies various benefits the emperors gained by employing eunuchs, such as the possibility of using them as scapegoats to take the blame for unpopular imperial actions,154 their lack of assimilability to the aristocratic elite due to their lowly origins as slaves and foreigners, and the non-corporate nature of their group.155 The major explanations offered by Hopkins are related to the changing natures of Roman society and of the Roman emperor. Proffering a structural analysis of the alterations that had occurred in the Roman power structure by the time of the later empire, he emphasises in particular that the emperor was now confronted with a ‘unified upper order’.156 The equestrians, which emperors of the principate had been able to use as a counterweight to the power of the senatorial elite, had become part of the elite themselves. The emperor thus had need of a new element to bring balance to the power structure, and this was provided by the court eunuchs.157 At the same time, the identity of the emperor had changed. He was no longer just the first citizen, the ideal of the principate, but a sacred figure, a deity or a representative of the Christian god. The emperor had become a more formal and awe-inspiring individual, one removed from the society of his subjects. As such he needed a channel to communicate with the outside world, a means of gathering information. This function was filled by the eunuchs.158 For Hopkins this other development is crucial for explaining why it was that eunuchs acquired the role of limiting the power of the elite, rather than any other group. Finally, he asserts that it was the fact that it had become the norm for chamberlains of the emperor to be eunuchs that accounted for their significant presence in the palace at all.159 He suggests that this development was prompted by the capture of the Persian harem by the Caesar Galerius in AD 298. The emperor Diocletian (284–305) is a vital part of the picture that Hopkins paints.160 It is Diocletian who is associated with the ascent of the equestrians to the ranks of the elite. It is Diocletian who is associated with the developments in imperial style, a style said to be copied from the Persian template. And under Diocletian court eunuchs are attested to be powerful. There is no doubting the importance of Hopkins’ analysis as a serious attempt to understand the existence of court eunuchs (and their power) in the later Roman empire, but some historians have not found it entirely persuasive. In his comparative study of slavery, Patterson devotes a chapter to those slaves who also attained political importance.161 This includes discussion of both Chinese and Byzantine eunuchs, of which the latter group encompasses for Patterson the eunuchs of the later Roman empire. Seeking to understand why ‘rulers who claim absolute power, often with divine authority, seem to prefer – even to need – slaves who have been castrated’, he begins with the initial observation that ‘The absolute ruler . . . requires the ultimate slave; and the ultimate slave is best represented in the anomalous person of the eunuch’.162 Subsequently he engages closely with Hopkins’ explanation for the use of eunuchs by the later Roman emperors, which for Patterson fails to provide an adequate solution to the question ‘Why eunuchs?’163 Reviewing aspects of the argumentation, approving some (eunuchs as scapegoats; 48

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

the unassimilability of eunuchs), rejecting others (the loyalty of eunuchs), raising additional factors (bureaucratic efficiency; genealogical isolation), Patterson maintains that these still do not resolve the ‘cultural mystery’ of why despised eunuchs were associated with rulers. He raises the important point, why could the later Roman emperors not just have used uncastrated individuals, such as slaves, ex-slaves or the lower classes, to fulfill the functions that the eunuchs did, an issue Wittfogel himself had touched upon. Patterson turns to symbolic anthropology to supply the key to unlock the puzzle. His argument is complex, but he reduces this to its bare bones before elaborating it: ‘I intend to argue that it is the very dirtiness, grotesqueness, and ineradicable defilement of the slave eunuch that explain his ritual necessity for any absolutist monarch who either rules with semidivine powers or who interprets his role as a holy mission’.164 Eunuchs, who embodied binary oppositions such as pure and profane, male and female, were beings who were able to act as intermediaries, and as such were the ideal mediators between the sacred emperor and his mortal subjects. Patterson develops this argument further by asserting that the emperor himself was polluted due to his contact with God, but that this pollution was blamed rather on his chief eunuch, ‘who thus became a symbolic as well as a political scapegoat’.165 A further contribution to the debate is Stevenson’s exploration of the rise of eunuchs under the Roman empire.166 Although not engaging explicitly with the views of Hopkins, Stevenson argues that eunuchs gradually acquired prominence. He thus undermines Hopkins’ case for a sudden change in the reign of Diocletian. For Stevenson, the crucial figure is Favorinus the sophist, whom he describes as ‘the first eunuch intimate with the highest circles of power in the Mediterranean, the first publicly visible eunuch, and through his immense popularity a watershed figure in the history of eunuchs in Rome’.167 He suggests that Favorinus’ friendship with the emperor Hadrian (117–138) ‘paved the way to power for eunuchs’.168 Stevenson also points out that as early as the reign of Caracalla (211–217) there existed a eunuch who was a significant political figure, Sempronius Rufus.169 He acknowledges that by the time of the fourth century influential court eunuchs were typical, but asserts that these precedents were significant. On the question of why eunuchs were able to attain such positions of power despite the hostility that could exist towards them, Stevenson is rather less certain. Seeking an answer he ventures tentatively into the arena of sexuality and gender, observing for instance that androgyny had some popularity, but reaches no firm conclusions. It is clear then that even in the specific example of later Roman court eunuchs an agreed solution explaining their desirability is elusive. Hopkins builds a compelling case, though he himself is aware that qualifications about some of the general ideas concerning eunuchs can be made. He appeals to the idea of eunuchs being trustworthy, but observes that they were capable of looking to their own interests rather than those of the emperor.170 He also notes the possibilities of eunuchs forging other social relationships and transmitting wealth.171 In addition, however, one can argue that the picture he has conjured up does not hold together. There is a sense that he has ignored rough edges. He wants to link the development with Diocletian, but admits that the equestrians becoming part of a 49

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

unified elite class was still ongoing under Constantine. Also, if it was Diocletian who began the trend, it seems unlikely that eunuchs could have already acquired power under this emperor, as Lactantius asserts. Stevenson’s contention that there was a more gradual process seems likely, though his pinpointing of Favorinus as the watershed figure fails to convince on the grounds that the sophist was hardly a typical eunuch and that eunuchs had surfaced at the Roman court much earlier, as has been observed.172 Some have argued that the Historia Augusta may indeed date to the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, so its assumption about the power of eunuchs at court could reflect reality rather than hindsight.173 Hopkins’ argument also strikes one as odd in that he asserts that Diocletian deliberately altered imperial style, but views the influx of eunuchs into the palace as essentially accidental, a consequence of Galerius’ capture of the Persian harem. There is no doubt that Hopkins is effective at explaining why eunuchs were powerful, but his attempt to account for the adoption of eunuchs by the court is flawed.174 Patterson is surely correct in maintaining that the question ‘Why eunuchs?’ is not dealt with adequately. For Patterson it is vital to understand the appeal of eunuchs as eunuchs, and he takes the bull by the horns. However, his utilisation of symbolic anthropology to provide the answer has been attacked sharply. In his investigation of the slave officials of the Sokoto caliphate, Philips reflects generally on elite slaves, and considers the arguments of Patterson. He remarks that Patterson’s

analysis of the eunuch as the perfect symbolic intermediary depends on his acceptance of an analysis of symbolism in myth that I simply do not accept, and which is in any event irrelevant to an analysis of the real world, especially as it has unfolded in actual history. Elite slaves are not fictional, much less mythological. They deserve to be treated by methods appropriate to the study of concrete historical phenomena, rather than by methods devised for the study of fictional or other unreal phenomena.175 One has a certain sympathy with Philip’s verdict. In addition, Patterson’s analysis highlights some of the dangers that can arise from the comparative approach. He fails to distinguish clearly between later Roman court eunuchs and those of the Byzantine empire; as will be seen more fully in the following chapter there were important differences between them. His knowledge of Byzantium can depend on some stereotypically negative accounts.176 His view of the dirtiness of Byzantine eunuchs, influenced by the Chinese evidence, is overplayed, just as his appreciation of the alternative view, of their purity, is underplayed. Ultimately, his observation that the ultimate master requires the ultimate slave convinces, but his explanation derails. However, the value of eunuchs as mediators has been emphasised by others. Hopkins himself made this point, and more recently Marmon and Ringrose have explored the issue in relation to Islamic and Byzantine eunuchs respectively.177 Interestingly they relate this ability to mediate to the gender identity of eunuchs, an aspect not raised by Hopkins but identified by Stevenson as probably significant. Studying eunuchs as guardians of sacred space 50

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

in Islamic society, Marmon states that eunuchs were ‘a category of nongendered individuals who both defined and crossed highly charged boundaries of moral and physical space in the world of the living and in the world of the dead’.178 Attempting to understand why eunuchs were an apparently integral element of Byzantine society, Ringrose reaches the conclusion that the ‘simplistic answer is that eunuchs constituted a third gender of individuals who were uniquely able to mediate between social groups’.179 The difficulty with such theories, as with Patterson’s, is that it is difficult to imagine the societies in question providing an explanation for the use of eunuchs in these terms. They are modern rationalisations of historical practice. I would argue that for a solution to be valid it must be comprehensible to the relevant society. It seems clear that the solution must also incorporate the factor that eunuchs were valued for being eunuchs. This was appreciated by Patterson, and unwittingly realised by Wittfogel. His opinion that ordinary slaves of ‘more normal physique’ would have been more useful to autocratic rulers than castrated ones suggests that the autocratic rulers preferred eunuch agents for a particular reason.180 Patterson’s assertion that the ultimate master requires the ultimate slave provides an attractive explanation. Hopkins emphasised that the altered nature of the Roman emperor in late antiquity was an important contributory factor to the rise of court eunuchs. There is no doubt that this evolution was an ongoing process from the institution of the principate up to the existence of the dominate, with Hellenistic and other eastern models, such as Persia, exerting their influence on Roman imperial identity.181 Octavian mocked the role of eunuchs at the court of Cleopatra VII, but by the fourth century the historian Ammianus Marcellinus is mocking the Roman emperor Constantius II for the same reason. The Historia Augusta spells out the Persian exemplar of the use of eunuchs and the associated nature of the ruler. Noting that Severus Alexander did not employ eunuchs in council or as ministers, it continues: these creatures alone cause the downfall of emperors, for they wish them to live in the manner of foreign nations or as the kings of the Persians, and keep them well removed from the people and their friends, and they are gobetweens, often delivering messages other than the emperor’s reply, hedging him about, and aiming, above all things, to keep knowledge from him.182 Although presented in a negative manner, there is no mistaking here the more remote emperor of the later Roman empire who utilised eunuchs for contact with the world beyond his court. For Hopkins, it was Diocletian who was responsible for this transformation in the character of the Roman emperor, though he does acknowledge that others argue for a more gradual change.183 The paucity of evidence for the third-century empire prior to Diocletian should give one pause for thought. The fact that eunuchs were already powerful under Diocletian adds to the sense that there was earlier development. Perhaps the Historia Augusta’s references to the importance of eunuchs under Heliogabalus deserve to be taken more seriously. 51

THE C OURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

I would suggest, then, that eunuchs became an increasingly important part of the Roman court as the nature of the Roman emperor evolved over time. The Roman empire was subject to external ideas of royal power which placed value on the use of eunuchs by rulers. There is no doubt that certain explanations arose to account for the esteem attached to eunuchs, such as their trustworthiness, and there is no doubt that once employed by kings and emperors eunuchs were appreciated for the other benefits that they offered, but the fundamental reason for the use of eunuchs was that they were symbols of royalty.184 When commenting on Julian’s reforms, including the abandonment of the use of eunuchs at court, Socrates reports that the emperor was criticised by the majority for bringing ‘the imperial dignity into contempt, by stripping it of those appendages of pomp and magnificence which exercise so powerful an influence over the minds of the vulgar’.185 The Spanish traveller Ibn Jubayr who visited the east in 1182–1185 was of the opinion that eunuchs contributed splendour to the court of the Abbasid Caliph Nasir (1180–1225).186 It is often thought that in China the use of eunuchs was restricted to the emperors, and whilst this is erroneous it is clear that the custom was followed also by those who belonged to the imperial family or by the noble elite who sought to imitate imperial practice.187 The Greek and Roman reports about the original creation of eunuchs by eastern queens such as Atossa and Semiramis tend to emphasise the gender aspect of the stories, but the royal dimension should not be overlooked. In Terence’s The Eunuch, the use of eunuchs is associated not with women in general, but with royal women specifically.188 The parallel drawn by the Byzantines between the angels of God and the eunuchs of the emperor reinforces the sense that castrated men were naturally associated with rulers.189 There is no doubt that eunuchs were a traditional trapping of eastern royal courts, and there are a number of possible reasons, beyond those already considered, why eunuchs appealed to rulers. As altered humans with distinctive physical features eunuchs constituted a group which made an immediate visual impact (even more so than non-castrated foreigners), and as such had great worth as symbols and status markers.190 This may be one reason why they were valued above other slaves and servants, a fact which puzzled Wittfogel. Eunuchs conveyed messages about power, which suited an imperial or royal agenda. As males deprived of the ability to procreate they symbolised the extreme authority of their masters. It is worthwhile recalling the practice of castrating political enemies, dead and alive, which was an expression of triumph and control. The issue of masculinity is relevant here too. In the case of the castration of opponents, the masculinity of the castrator is enhanced and that of the victim is nullified. In the case of using eunuchs at court, the fact that an uncastrated male ruler was surrounded by castrated men probably intensified his masculine identity and thus his status as a powerful individual. This is certainly true of the Chinese emperor and the Ottoman sultan. The story that Semiramis (or Atossa) invented the use of eunuchs at court to obscure her femininity by surrounding herself with feminised men, suggests that the gender impact of court eunuchs was appreciated in Greco-Roman antiquity. 52

THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LAT E R RO MA N E MP I R E

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that not all eastern courts did feature eunuchs. For instance, Japan’s lack of use of court eunuchs is often commented upon, and attempts have been made to understand this apparent aberration.191 Thus the employment of eunuchs by royal or imperial courts was not inevitable. There had to be suitable conditions for the adoption of the tradition. Crucial factors included willingness and opportunity. However, once the practice had been embraced it was difficult to shake, witness the persistent presence of eunuchs in the Chinese, Byzantine and Ottoman empires.

Conclusion The later Roman empire is notable for the presence of eunuchs at its imperial courts. This adoption of the ancient tradition reflects the changing nature of the Roman empire and emperor under the increasing impact of eastern models. This was a process of evolution, rather than a revolution launched by Diocletian, though the emergence of eunuch chamberlains intensified the development and led to the increasing power of the court eunuchs through their close proximity to, and subsequent influence with, the emperors. Although eunuchs could become potent imperial agents, this was a consequence of their situation rather than the result of emperors deliberately seeking to create an alternative power group. First and foremost, eunuchs were valued as the appropriate accompaniment of imperial status. The later Roman empire set the pattern for the use and importance of eunuchs at the Byzantine court, though there was to be further evolution of the system, as will be seen in the following chapter.

53

5 TRANS FORM ATI ONS Byzantine court eunuchs, seventh to eleventh centuries AD

Introduction The significant use of eunuchs by the imperial court established in the later Roman period was maintained in the Byzantine empire. Politically powerful eunuchs are particularly evident in the middle Byzantine era. There were however notable transformations in the identity of Byzantine court eunuchs. The titles and posts available to eunuchs increased, and there was a tendency for eunuchs to be supplied from the native population of the empire as well as from the traditional source of foreigners living outside the empire. This chapter will explore these transformations, and consider the reasons for them.

Prominent court eunuchs From the seventh to the eleventh centuries AD court eunuchs continued to distinguish the imperial court. Examples of the most prominent cases drawn from across this chronological span will be provided here, to illustrate the persistence and significance of eunuch power in Byzantium.1 In the seventh century, the eunuch Stephen the Persian was a leading official during the first reign of Justinian II (685–695).2 Described as the chief eunuch and sakellarios of the emperor, he is characterised as powerful and cruel.3 He is even credited with whipping Justinian’s mother. When the emperor was overthrown, Stephen’s fate was to be bound and dragged to the forum of the ox, where he was burnt alive. Under the empress Eirene, who famously ruled in her own right (797–802),4 two eunuchs were especially important: Staurakios and Aetios.5 Both men were already prominent during Eirene’s regency for her son Constantine VI (780–797), and both suffered as her allies when Constantine turned on his mother in 790, though the emperor’s initial objective had been to get rid of the all-powerful Staurakios. Staurakios was originally the more distinguished of the two eunuchs,6 but ended up competing for power with Aetios, who outlived both him and Eirene and continued to serve under Nikephoros I (802–811). Both these eunuchs attained the title of patrikios and filled leading posts. During the regency Staurakios was already logothete of the drome, went on embassy to the Arabs, and campaigned successfully against the Slavs in Greece, for which he earned a triumph. When Eirene ruled alone, 54

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

Aetios perhaps became logothete of the drome, and commanded the Opsikion and Anatolikon armies. A key figure in the history of the Amorian dynasty (820–867) is Theoktistos, thought to have been a eunuch.7 Theoktistos played a role in the seizure of power by Michael II (820–829), under whom he became patrikios and keeper of the imperial inkstand. Under Michael’s son and heir Theophilos (829–842) the eunuch rose still higher, becoming logothete of the drome. He attained the pinnacle of his power during the empress Theodora’s regency for her son Michael III (842–867). He led campaigns against the Arabs on land and sea, with mixed fortunes, though his ascendancy did witness the successful Byzantine assault on Damietta in Egypt in 853. Some have seen Theoktistos as a vital figure in the reanimation of Byzantium in the ninth century.8 His prominence was curtailed however by Bardas, brother of Theodora and uncle of Michael, who had political aspirations of his own. In 855 Theoktistos was eliminated. The founder of the Macedonian dynasty (867–1056), Basil I (867–886), has the reputation of not being a great eunuch enthusiast.9 Nevertheless, during his reign the eunuch Baanes achieved eminence.10 He was patrikios, praipositos and sakellarios. During the celebrations for the baptism of Basil’s infant son Stephen on Christmas Day in 867, after the church service Baanes processed with the imperial family back to the palace in a horse-drawn chariot, holding the child in his arms.11 He was a trusted agent during the removal of Photios from patriarchal office and its aftermath. And when Basil was absent from Constantinople campaigning on the eastern frontier, Baanes represented the emperor in the imperial city. Basil’s successor, Leo VI (886–912), had much more obvious relationships with eunuchs.12 His reign features two renowned court eunuchs, Samonas the Arab and Constantine the Paphlagonian.13 Samonas’ rise to prominence began c. 900 when he informed the emperor of a plot against his life. Despite an attempt to flee to his homeland in 904, Samonas is characterised as a loyal agent of the emperor, especially during the struggle to have Leo’s fourth marriage officially sanctioned by the church. He became a patrikios, the godfather of Leo’s infant son Constantine in 906, and eventually parakoimomenos, the post of chief eunuch. However, his success proved transitory. In 908 he was disgraced and confined to a monastery, having been exposed as the mastermind behind a plot to discredit another court eunuch, Constantine the Paphlagonian, of whom he had become jealous. Ironically it was Samonas who had introduced Constantine to the court, as a gift for Zoe Karbonopsina, Leo’s fourth wife. The empress and emperor both became attached to this eunuch, which led to Samonas’ efforts to be rid of the rival. When Samonas was hoist with his own petard, Constantine benefited, becoming parakoimomenos. He was also a key figure in the regency of Zoe for her son Constantine VII (913–959), losing power together with her due to the rise of Romanos I Lekapenos (920–944). This emperor was father to one of the most famous Byzantine eunuchs, Basil Lekapenos, better known as either Basil the parakoimomenos or Basil the Nothos (‘bastard’).14 Basil secured political significance under Constantine VII after the overthrow of his Lekapenid half-brothers in 945, becoming patrikios and parakoimomenos. He scored military 55

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

success against Sayf al-Dawla in 958, and was rewarded with a triumph. He also found favour under Nikephoros II Phokas (963–969) and John I Tzimiskes (969–976), though he is reported to have ended up betraying both men. It was Nikephoros who raised him to the title of proedros, an honour created for Basil. It was under the Macedonian Basil II (976–1025) that the eunuch reached the apogee of power, due to the inexperience of the young emperor. Basil II reacted against this situation in 986 when he exiled Basil Lekapenos. Then in 996 the emperor issued a celebrated novel, in which he annulled the chrysobulls issued by the eunuch.15 Basil the parakoimomenos was known in particular for his acquisition of land for his monastic foundation.16 The novel dealt more broadly with the amassing of land by the ‘powerful’, which had also concerned other emperors of the tenth century. In the novel Basil II made an example of a specific individual, the protovestiarios Philokales.17 Interestingly, it seems that Philokales was probably a eunuch; not only was he protovestiarios but he had been a koitonites. The law, surviving in two versions, relates that Philokales ‘was originally one of the poor and the villagers, but afterwards one of the illustrious and wealthy . . . he took possession of the entire village commune and made it into his own estate’.18 When Basil II travelled through the area the poor complained to him, so the emperor destroyed Philokales’ property and reduced him to his original status. It is perhaps also significant that Basil II was responsible for invalidating legal bequests to eunuchs; was this inspired by his experiences of his great-uncle?19 The history of court eunuchs in the eleventh century is dominated by two figures, John the orphanotrophos and Nikephoritzes.20 John had acquired political significance under Basil II, and became praipositos in the reign of Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034).21 The accession of Michael IV (1034–1041) testifies to his power, for Michael was John’s brother. His power began to decline under Michael V (1041–1042), although this emperor was a relative too, his nephew. John was removed to a monastery, and then exiled and blinded under Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055). It was under Constantine IX that Nikephoritzes first entered the imperial palace, and he served other emperors before his key role in the reign of Michael VII Doukas (1071–1078), as logothete of the drome. He was doux of Antioch under Constantine X Doukas (1059–1067), and praitor of the Peloponnese and Hellas during the reign of Romanos IV Diogenes (1068–1071). Infamously, under Michael VII, Nikephoritzes introduced a state corn monopoly. When Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078–1081) came to power, Nikephoritzes fled, but was subsequently handed over to Botaneiates and died under torture, being interrogated as to the whereabouts of the wealth he had squirreled away. These examples of leading court eunuchs of the middle Byzantine period illustrate the persistent use and power of eunuchs in the empire. They were the regular agents of emperors and empresses, trusted with administrative, military and financial roles. They could symbolise the imperial regimes themselves. Some had brief moments of glory, whilst others could have more long-lasting careers, even serving several different rulers, though not necessarily consecutively. Careers could be marked by setbacks, but also by recovery, and could terminate in spectacular falls. Court eunuchs, like other imperial personnel, had to play the 56

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

game of power well if they were to succeed and survive. The images of these eunuchs preserved in the sources is often hostile, their acts presented negatively, though positive assessments can be made too.22 It is also apparent that, when compared to their later Roman predecessors, these eunuchs could hold different titles and offices. It is this transformation that will be considered in the following section.

Titles and offices of Byzantine eunuchs: the Kletorologion of Philotheos A unique insight into the titles and offices available to eunuchs in the middle Byzantine period is provided by the Kletorologion of Philotheos, an atriklines who held the title of imperial protospatharios.23 An atriklines was an official in charge of organising imperial feasts and ensuring that the correct order of social precedence was observed on such occasions. In his Kletorologion Philotheos sets out to describe for his fellow atriklinai the individuals who could be invited to the imperial feasts, their exact order of precedence at that moment in time, and the prominent feasts of the year to which various combinations of these people would be invited. The document was produced during the reign of Leo VI, in the year 899, though there is evidence of later additions, and it ended up being appended to Constantine VII’s Book of Ceremonies. Philotheos’ text is usually titled Kletorologion as it is concerned with feasts, but it is often observed that it should be described as a taktikon, given its preoccupation with listing offices and titles.24 Philotheos’ Kletorologion thus reveals much about the offices, titles and social hierarchy of his day. In the course of establishing this system, he pays particular attention to the position of eunuchs within it. It is revealed that there was a separate set of titles available to eunuchs, distinct from those available to other men (whom Philotheos defines as ‘the bearded’). Eight eunuch titles are listed, from the bottom up.25 These are: 1 Nipsistarios The meaning of this title indicates the function of ablutions attendant, symbolised by the image of a basin attached to the linen kamision worn by the holder. One source reports that Samonas was a nipsistiarios soon after entering the service of Leo VI.26 2 Koubikoularios This title derives from the term for chamberlain. 3 Spatharokoubikoularios This indicates an armed chamberlain, that is a bodyguard. The symbol of the title was a sword with a gold handle. 4 Ostiarios The term means doorkeeper, and the holder of the title received a golden baton decorated with precious stones. 57

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

5 Primikerios 6 Protospatharios This signifies a chief guard. 7 Praipositos The full title is ‘most illustrious praipositos’, and it no doubt derives from the later Roman office of the praepositus sacri cubiculi. 8 Patrikios This title is familiar due to the ancient distinction of patrician. Although these honorific names are considered titles, it is clear that at least some of them carried functions as well.27 Several of the titles imply attendance upon the emperor, and the praipositos continued to have an administrative role. Although listed as eunuch titles, two of the eight actually shared the name of a title available to non-eunuch men as well. These two are the protospatharios and patrikios.28 In the case of these common titles it is interesting to note that Philotheos indicates that the insignia appropriate to the eunuch version could be more elaborate. The insignia of the bearded protospatharios was a golden collar decorated with precious stones, but the collar of the eunuch protospatharios also featured pearls. It is also striking that in the hierarchy the eunuch patrikioi ranked above their bearded counterparts. As for offices, Philotheos lists ten that were reserved for eunuchs, from the top downwards.29 These are: 1 Parakoimomenos This denoted the chief eunuch, and thus seems to have taken the position once held by the praepositus sacri cubiculi. 2 Protovestiarios The title of this office conveys responsibility for the emperor’s wardrobe, and replaced the comes sacrae vestis. 3 Master of the Emperor’s Table (́PITËQTRAPqZHQ) 4 Master of the Augusta’s Table 5. Papias of the Great Palace The papias was a caretaker, and had particular responsibility for security, having charge of the palace keys. 6 Deuteros of the Great Palace This official assisted the papias, acting as his ‘second’. 7 Pingernes of the Emperor The pingernes was an imperial waiter. 8 Pingernes of the Augusta 58

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

9 Papias of the Magnaura 10 Papias of Daphne It is notable that all these offices which were meant to be the preserve of eunuchs convey close physical proximity to the emperor and empress, and especially care for their bodies and their space. This is most emphatic in the case of the parakoimomenos, for the term means literally ‘the one who sleeps beside’. It should be appreciated also that this list of elite offices only represents the tip of the iceberg of the eunuchs who were found in the imperial service. Beneath was a host of lowlier chamberlains. In addition, eunuchs were not restricted to these ten offices alone, as Philotheos is quick to point out. They could in fact be appointed to almost all other posts in the imperial administration too, including the strategoi of the themes (military governors of the provinces). It was seen above, for instance, that several eunuchs became logothete of the drome. The office of sakellarios was one that was often filled by a eunuch, since later Roman times, even though it was not officially designated a eunuch only post.30 There were only three positions that eunuchs could not hold: eparch (city prefect of Constantinople), quaestor (judge and legislator), and domestikos (military officer, of which there were several variants). Why these offices were off limits to eunuchs is not explained by Philotheos. Bury suggested that it was because these posts were ones with ‘ancient associations and prestige’.31 Guilland proffered that it was a matter of protocol.32 Ringrose argues that as the eparch was ‘father of the city’ it was an inappropriate office for a eunuch, but notes that in the seventh century the eunuch Gregorios did hold the post.33 These restrictions did not necessarily persist, for in the eleventh century there are several instances of eunuchs becoming domestic of the scholai.34 It should also be noted, however, that sometimes non-eunuchs could fill positions that were meant to reserved for eunuchs. The most famous case of this is that of Basil the Macedonian, who became the parakoimomenos of Michael III after the fall of Damianos the Slav from the post, even though Basil was definitely not a eunuch.35 Despite these qualifications, it is evident that eunuchs had a wide range of functions in the imperial service and administration potentially available to them, a range in fact far beyond that of their bearded counterparts. Philotheos’ Kletorologion also reveals the great changes that had occurred in the system of offices and titles since the later Roman period, providing a strong contrast with the Notitia Dignitatum.36 It is natural to ask what these changes signify. It is evident that there was evolution in the system. As was seen in the previous chapter, even within the period of late antiquity the status of eunuch posts in the social hierarchy altered, their function could alter, and new posts could be created. Philotheos’ text presents a further development of the structure, but it should be stressed that he merely provides a snapshot in time, a momentary glimpse before further change occurred. This impression is reinforced by the fact that additions were soon made to the original text. Regarding eunuchs, it has already been observed that in the tenth century a 59

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

new title for eunuchs was created, when Nikephoros II Phokas honoured Basil Lekapenos as proedros. This title experienced further evolution in the eleventh century.37 However, despite recognising that change was an ongoing process, the contrast between the late antique system and the Byzantine one represented by the Kletorologion is a dramatic one. As far as eunuchs are concerned, by 899 they had offices reserved for them, as well as having access to most of those of the bearded. This suggests that there were a greater number of eunuchs in office by this date. In addition, they had acquired their own honours system. By the time of Philotheos, then, the status of eunuchs had become distinct and enhanced. Paradoxically, they were both set apart from their bearded colleagues and integrated amongst them, though one could make the same observation about the leading later Roman court eunuchs. Nevertheless, the contrasting nature of the system of offices and titles remains clear, and raises the question of whether there was a key moment or period of transformation. The obvious candidate to consider is the seventh century, when the empire is often thought to have altered from Roman to Byzantine, from antique to medieval, though the importance of the sixth century as a vital phase of evolution is recognised too.38 In his study of the office of the grand chamberlain, Dunlap noted the changes in the administrative system that took place in the sixth century.39 The titles and offices in Philotheos’ Kletorologion are distinctly Greek compared to those in the Latin Notitia Dignitatum, but how far can they be traced back in time? The most prominent eunuch posts by the ninth century were those of the parakoimomenos and the protovestiarios. Oikonomidès relates that the former office appeared first at the end of the reign of Maurice (582–602),40 that there were several parakoimomenoi in the service of the praepositus, and that it was in the ninth century that it became an individual position.41 As for the office of protovestiarios, Oikonomidès asserts that it was only known from the ninth century, but there are seals of protovestiarioi dated to the eighth century.42 These details suggest the model of a more gradual evolution, though one has to acknowledge the paucity of our narrative evidence for the seventh century. What is clear is that a transformation had occurred in eunuch offices and titles between late antiquity and the late ninth century. This was not the only transformation relating to eunuchs between these two chronological points, as will be seen in the following section.

Ethnic origin and social ties In the previous chapter it was seen that in late antiquity there existed the ideal that the eunuchs utilised by the imperial court should be of non-Roman origin, supplied from beyond the boundaries of the empire. This ideal was shared by other cultures too, most notably Islamic ones. In Byzantium, foreign eunuchs continue to find a place serving the emperors and empresses. Amongst the cases of leading court eunuchs cited above, there was encountered Stephen the Persian and Samonas the Arab. The latter even attempted to escape to his homeland, and later had an interview with his father when he came on embassy to Constantinople 60

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

from Tarsus about an exchange of prisoners.43 Other specific examples can be identified. Under Michael III, Damianos the parakoimomenos was a Slav.44 Constantine IX Monomachos had as grand hetaireiarch and then strategos autokrator the eunuch Constantine the Saracen.45 Artakios the koubikoularios, known from a seal dated to the seventh or eighth century, is identified as an Armenian because of his name.46 Looking beyond the chronological boundary of this chapter, there is the eunuch George who served under Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) and who is described as a barbarian.47 More general references to non-Byzantine eunuchs also exist. In the ninth century Jahiz accuses the Byzantines of kidnapping Muslim children and castrating them.48 The four penisless eunuchs (carzimasians) that Liudprand brought as a gift to Constantine VII in the tenth century were supplied by the merchants of Verdun.49 Psellos reports that a corps of youthful Scythian eunuchs formed the personal bodyguard of the emperor Michael V.50 However, it is evident that in the Byzantine empire eunuchs could be supplied from the native population.51 This is explicitly acknowledged by the tenthcentury Arab writer Masudi, who observes matter-of-factly that the Byzantines, like the Chinese, did castrate their own children.52 In the twelfth century the abbot and historian Guibert de Nogent reflects the fact that Byzantine eunuchs existed when he records that the emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) decreed that Byzantine families who had several sons should have one of them castrated.53 That Byzantines did castrate their own children is corroborated in details supplied in a Byzantine text about the tenth-century court eunuch Constantine the Paphlagonian.54 It is related that Constantine was the son of Metrios, a farmer in Paphlagonia, and that Metrios castrated his child for the sake of a career in Constantinople. This action is said to have been customary amongst farmers in the region. Certainly, a series of Byzantine court eunuchs of the tenth and eleventh centuries did hail from Paphlagonia, as Magdalino has demonstrated.55 The seven cases he identifies between the dates 906–1042 include Constantine and John the orphanotrophos (discussed above), as well as the following: 1–2 The Gongylios brothers, Anastasios and Constantine.56 They were both prominent during the regency of Zoe Karbonopsina, and Constantine also held office in the sole reign of Constantine VII, filling the post of droungarios of the fleet. 3 Theodore. This eunuch was a literary figure rather than an official, though Magdalino suggests that he might have been identical with Constantine VII’s tutor. 4 Joseph Bringas.57 He served Constantine VII and then his son Romanos II. Under the latter he rose to the position of parakoimomenos, having been praipositos, sakellarios and droungarios of the fleet. He fell victim to the enmity of Nikephoros II Phokas, and was exiled to Paphlagonia. 61

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

5 George, better known as Symeon the New Theologian.58 Before beginning his monastic career, Symeon was sent by his parents from Paphlagonia to Constantinople to find employment in the imperial service. Other Paphlagonian eunuchs can be added to this list. John the orphanotrophos was not the only eunuch in his family, for his brothers George and Constantine were also castrated.59 George became protovestiarios, but it was Constantine who had the more spectacular career. Under his brother Michael IV he was doux of Antioch as well as domestic of the scholai, but during the reign of his nephew Michael V he became more powerful than John. This is illustrated by his attainment of the title of nobelissimos, which had not been previously won by a eunuch.60 When Michael V fell from power, Constantine suffered with him the fate of blinding. The number of eunuchs in the family had been increased when Michael V came to power, for he castrated several of his own relatives then.61 Also, it seems that the uncle of Symeon the New Theologian was a eunuch. It was he who initiated Symeon’s career in the palace. He was a bed chamberlain (koitonites) in the imperial service, and thus in all likelihood a eunuch.62 Whether Symeon himself really was a eunuch is a matter that is still debated.63 Although Symeon worked in the imperial service and became a spatharokoubikoularios, his hagiographer Niketas Stethatos does not explicitly declare that he was a eunuch, though he does record that after his death Symeon appeared to the monk Philotheos in a vision as a ‘white-haired, handsome, venerable eunuch’.64 A eunuch who is identified as a Paphlagonian is Constantine Phagitzes, whom John the orphanotrophos despatched to Constantine Dalassenos to assure him of his good intentions.65 It is also interesting to note the report by the twelfth-century chronicler Kedrenos that during a famine in Pontos in the reign of Theodosius II Paphlagonians were forced to castrate and sell their own children.66 Although Kedrenos locates this event in the fifth century no other source reports it, so perhaps he has been influenced by contemporary reality. Thus across the tenth and eleventh centuries court eunuchs who were Paphlagonians are regularly encountered. However, it is not just from this region that native eunuchs originate. Examples are Niketas of Pisidia, who became doux of Iberia in the reign of Constantine VIII,67 and Stephen the Pergamene, who was one of the eunuchs of the empress Zoe the Macedonian, bore the title sebastophoros, became strategos autokrator, and was exiled after being accused of plotting against the emperor Constantine IX Monomachos.68 Nikephoritzes himself was from the Boukellarion theme.69 Basil Lekapenos should not be forgotten, though his mother was of foreign extraction. One might be tempted to cite the case of Peter Phokas too, so active in the military arena in the tenth century,70 but as Skylitzes makes clear Peter was not a blood member of the Phokas family, he was just one of their slaves.71 There are also eunuchs who are evidently natives though it is not revealed where exactly they come from. Under Michael IV the eunuch George Probatas led an army against Stephen the Serbian.72 The Probatai are known to have been a distinguished family from Asia Minor.73 The eunuch Niketas Xylinites was 62

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

logothete of the drome under Theodora the Macedonian (1054–1056).74 Although the origins of his family are not known it is clear that he was a Byzantine, as his ancestors feature in the history of the empire.75 The metropolitan of Side, John the eunuch, played a leading role at the courts of Romanos IV Diogenes and Michael VII Doukas, before being ousted by Nikephoritzes, though he returned to favour under Nikephoros III Botaneiates.76 As a leading cleric he was presumably a native of the empire. Looking beyond the boundary of the career of Nikephoritzes one encounters for instance, in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118), Eustathios Kyminianos, who was grand droungarios of the fleet, and Leo Nikerites, a trusted agent of the emperor who became doux of Paristrion.77 And under Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), the prominent eunuch Thomas hailed from Lesbos.78 The evidence for, and examples of, native Byzantine eunuchs, has thus far been drawn from the tenth century and later. The question arises, did such eunuchs exist earlier than this? They can certainly be located in the ninth century. The Paphlagonian custom existed in this century, since Constantine was probably castrated before 900. He was given to the empress Zoe by Samonas in 907, and he had previously belonged to Basil the magistros.79 Islamic evidence also places the Byzantine practice of castrating their own children in the ninth century, though Jahiz reports that this was done for religious reasons.80 From the first half of the ninth century there is the possible case of Thedore Krateros, a eunuch prominent during the reign of Theophilos.81 Theodore threw an Arab in single combat in the hippodrome in Constantinople, and became one of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion, sacked by the Arabs in 838. The Krateroi were a known Byzantine family, but Cheynet wonders if the eunuch Theodore was one of the servants of the family, rather than a member of it.82 However, such a view may be unduly cautious.83 Another possible native eunuch is the famous Aetios. Although his origin is not reported, it is likely that he was a Byzantine since his brother Leo also had a prominent career, becoming monostrategos of Thrace and Macedonia.84 If Aetios was indeed a native of the empire, his case takes us back into the eighth century. Fortunately, more definite examples exist. The eunuch patrikios and sakellarios Leo, who deserted Eirene to support Nikephoros I, was from Sinope on the southern coast of the Black Sea.85 There is also the case of the patrikios Niketas, the iconophile saint, born in 761/2.86 Although he became a monk early in the ninth century, he was intended for a palace career by his parents, who castrated him. He rose to the rank of patrician, and became strategos of Sicily. Notably, he was a Paphlagonian.87 Leontios, the sakellarios of Phokas (602–610), is said to have come from Syria, though which specific part is not revealed.88 From the later sixth century there is the example of Narses, a court eunuch who became a bishop: he was born in Smyrna.89 The emergence of native eunuchs may be reflected by an episode in the intriguing eighth-century text the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai.90 This idiosyncratic guide to monuments in Constantinople refers to a statue of the eunuch Plato, a cubicularius, who had been burnt to death in the fifth century for opposing the emperor Basiliscus (475–477). The text asserts that the statue was put up at the request of the parents of Plato. Cameron and Herrin found 63

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

the reference to the eunuch’s parents rather odd, since in the fifth century one would expect eunuchs to be imported barbarian slaves, sundered from any family context.91 However, perhaps the source simply reflects a changed situation: by the eighth century native eunuchs may not have been such a surprise. A lack of knowledge about the origins of court eunuchs makes further progression difficult. It is clear that from the tenth century there was significant production of native eunuchs. Examples can also be located in the ninth and eighth centuries. This contrasts with the later Roman emphasis on eunuchs being foreigners and slaves. In his study of Paphlagonian eunuchs Magdalino notes that in the sixth century the emperor Justinian I commanded a halt to the creation of Abasgian eunuchs, and since they formed the majority of castrated servants in the empire, an alternative source of supply became necessary.92 In this context, as Jones realised, Justinian’s concerned reaction to the castration of Romans by Romans, expressed in Novel 142, appears telling.93 The emperor details punishments for those who perform castrations and for those who abet them, and contrasts the occurrence of castrations within the empire with the termination of the practice amongst the barbarians. On the face of it, it is tempting to read this law as indicating the turning point when native eunuchs replaced foreign eunuchs as the major group in the empire. Yet it should be recognised that Justinian’s alarm at the creation of Roman eunuchs was not new. The earlier laws of Constantine I and Leo I indicate that this had been happening already, since the fourth century at least. Ayalon realised the implications of these decrees, contrasting the repetitive Roman legislation against castration with the situation in the Islamic world, where ‘similar edicts are practically unknown’.94 The late antique legislation reveals that the emperors were hoping to stop the practice of creating and selling Roman eunuchs, rather than that they did stop it; the ideal of foreign eunuchs did not entirely match the reality. Perhaps Kedrenos’ story about Paphlagonians castrating their own children in the fifth century could be true. However, it is still evident that there is a contrast between the prominence of foreign court eunuchs in the later Roman period, and that of native eunuchs in the medieval Byzantine empire. It is possible that the shutting down of the supply of Abasgian eunuchs was indeed a momentous event. One can speculate about other factors, but without harder data certainty is elusive. Perhaps the rise of the Arab empire in the aftermath of the birth of Islam played a part, disrupting old supply lines. On the other hand, however, it is clear that Arabs themselves were a source of eunuchs for Byzantium. Perhaps it is possible that the increasing number of native eunuchs was connected with the Christianisation of the empire. Although the church frowned upon Christians castrating themselves, it is evident that the practice persisted, and that parents could view the castration of sons in a positive Christian light.95 Alternatively, the rewards that court eunuchs could win during their careers, which would have become increasingly apparent as the phenomenon became established in the empire in the later Roman period, may have provided Byzantine families with a strong economic incentive to castrate a relative. The parallel of Italian families castrating sons and male relatives for potentially lucrative careers as castrati 64

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

springs readily to mind.96 Indeed, the tenth-century Byzantine dictionary cum encyclopaedia known as the Suda (meaning ‘fortress’) records that the example of Eutropius’ successful career in the fourth century led to an increase in the number of eunuchs and even caused some post-pubertal males to castrate themselves.97 Other factors may be the changing identity of the empire and its inhabitants from the later Roman to the Byzantine period, or the issues of slavery and service. In Novel 142 Justinian ordered that all eunuchs were to be freed. Ironically, perhaps this made becoming a eunuch less stigmatised, breaking the association with being a slave. Whatever the explanation for the increasing numbers of native eunuchs, it led to a situation where eunuchs were more socially integrated.98 Although it was seen that in the later Roman empire ties and bonds with wider society were not impossible for court eunuchs, there is no doubt that in the Byzantine empire such associations were more emphatic.99 Relatives of Byzantine eunuchs could also have political roles. The most famous case is the family of John the orphanotrophos. His brothers George and Constantine were also eunuchs, and attained prominent offices and titles. John’s non-eunuch brothers also secured office. Niketas served as the doux of Antioch, and Michael became emperor and the husband of Zoe the Macedonian. John’s nephew Michael became emperor too. Earlier examples of eunuchs with brothers in public life can be found. Niketas the patrikios, whom Nikephoros II Phokas was very attached to, had a brother Michael, who was protovestiarios, patrikios praipositos and vestes.100 As has been seen, Aetios had a brother Leo, whom he allegedly planned to make emperor. The intellectual and cleric Theophylact of Ochrid had a eunuch brother (probably Demetrios), for whom he wrote his In Defence of Eunuchs in the early twelfth century.101 Another case of brothers is supplied by the manuscript of the Leo Bible, dated to the tenth century.102 The patron of the artefact, which was intended for the monastery of St Nicholas, was the eunuch Leo, who was patrikios, praipositos and sakellarios. He is depicted in the frontispiece proffering the Bible to the Virgin (Plate 14). The companion frontispiece depicts the non-eunuch brother of Leo, Constantine the protospatharios, at the feet of St Nicholas (Plate 15).103 The most well-connected eunuch is of course Basil Lekapenos, who was related to both the Lekapenids and the Macedonians. His father Romanos was an emperor, his half-sister Helena was an empress, his brother-in-law was Constantine VII, and thus he was uncle to Romanos II and great-uncle to Basil II and Constantine VIII. Other eunuchs with imperial connections are Constantine the patrikios, who was supposedly related to the empress Eirene, and Joseph Bringas, who was an ancestor of Michael VI. Belonging to native families, eunuchs found themselves connected to other Byzantine families, either through the arrangements of third parties or by forging such ties themselves. Intermarriage was the obvious route in creating these wider social connections. The sister of John the orphanotrophos, Maria, was married to the patrikios Stephen, and their son Michael became Caesar and then emperor. John was instrumental in arranging the marriage of his brother Michael to Zoe the Macedonian, and also her adoption of his nephew Michael. John also had another nephew, Constantine, who held the rank of magistros, and whom he considered 65

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

as a candidate for the position of emperor.104 In the ninth century, as has been seen, Basil Lekapenos found himself an in-law of the Macedonian dynasty, and remained a significant political player from the reign of Constantine VII to that of Basil II. Constantine the Paphlagonian was more active in linking himself with a prominent family, for his sister became the wife of Leo Phokas.105 As well as intermarriage, other methods of creating kinship existed. At the end of the ninth century the emperor Leo VI issued a new law, permitting eunuchs the right to adopt.106 Leo extols the blessing of children that comes through marriage, and laments the fact that eunuchs have been deprived by law of children and the joys they bring. The emperor records that the ruling was justified on the grounds that what nature has not given the law cannot bestow, but he disagrees with this judgement, observing that it was not nature that deprived eunuchs of their ability to father children, but the injustice of men. Thus Leo was moved to overturn the old law and end the suffering of eunuchs.107 Despite the new legislation, examples of eunuchs adopting are lacking in the historical record. The closest one gets is a eunuch professing intent to adopt during the reign of Nikephoros III Botaneiates. This is the case of John the protovestiarios, who declared that he would adopt the adult George Palaiologos, since the latter had saved him in battle.108 However, it seems doubtful that John carried out his promise. The silence of the historical record is frustrating. Does it mean that eunuchs did not often seek to adopt, or that the sources simply do not record when they did? At least the example of John and George Palaiologos demonstrates that the possibility existed. Perhaps eunuchs invested more effort in relationships with extant kin, such as nephews, as castrati such as Farinelli did.109 Although Leo VI was moved to allow eunuchs the right to adopt, his sympathy had its limits: he upheld the ban on them getting married.110 He refused them this since the purpose of marriage was procreation, which eunuchs could not achieve.111 It is nevertheless interesting that the emperor broached the subject at all. Combined with the law on adoption it suggests that concerns of eunuchs were prominent in Leo’s mind. Was he being petitioned by his own eunuchs? Further, should one imagine that illegal adoptions and marriages were being performed prior to his legislation, and that illegal marriages continued to be performed after it? The ignoring of the ban on castration, which Leo also reiterated, suggests that it is a distinct possibility, despite a lack of hard evidence.112 Beyond kinship, real or fictive, Byzantine court eunuchs also had the opportunity to form connections with other members of society, perhaps to a greater degree than their foreign counterparts in the later Roman period. Such relationships could be distinguished by the extremes of enmity and friendship. A striking example relates to the figure of John the orphanotrophos. The emperor Isaac I Komnenos (1057–1059) donated twenty-four nomismata annually to the monastery of the Theotokos Dekapolitissa, to pay for a candle to be lit at the tomb of the eunuch.113 Such an act bespeaks the importance of the relationship that had existed between them. Like the family of John, the Komnenoi were from Paphlagonia and had only come to prominence in the eleventh century.114 66

TRANSFORM ATI ON S

Conclusion The Byzantine empire, like the later Roman empire, is conspicuous for its use of eunuchs at court. However, there were clear differences in the phenomenon between the two empires. In the evolved Byzantine system of offices and titles eunuchs had their own distinct place, but they also had access to most of the offices available to the bearded, including eventually the position of domestikos. At the same time, it is evident that eunuchs were being supplied from the native population, not just from foreign sources, to the extent that they seem to outnumber the latter. This had particular repercussions. Eunuchs in the imperial service were no longer just of slave origin, but could be free individuals. Also, the fact that court eunuchs could be natives meant that they had social ties beyond those with the emperor, and were more integrated in the empire than the foreign court eunuchs of the later Roman period. Thus it is important to distinguish between the court eunuchs of the later Roman empire and those of the Byzantine empire, a fact which underlines the larger transformations occurring in the empire in the late antique and early medieval periods.115 Debates about these transformations should include discussion of the evolving nature of court eunuchs.

67

6 E UNUCHS AND RELI GI ON

Introduction The previous two chapters have focused on those eunuchs who were employed by later Roman and Byzantine rulers, either as servants at court or as officials in the imperial administration. However, eunuchs in later Roman and Byzantine society were not just confined to these positions. They are, for instance, also found as teachers and singers, but especially as religious figures, such as clergy, monks and even saints. They achieved these roles in spite of the fact that the church frowned upon self-castrates serving as clergy, and that a general hostile attitude towards eunuchs could exist. This chapter will illustrate the common existence of religious eunuchs in the later Roman and Byzantine empires, focusing especially on the latter. It will also explore the tension in attitudes towards religious eunuchs, which was polarised between antipathy and admiration. Finally, it will show that the secular and religious worlds were not mutually exclusive. Not only was religion of concern to eunuchs who were secular officials, but there were religious eunuchs who became court officials, court eunuchs who became religious figures, and religious eunuchs who also held office at court.

Religion and self-castration As was seen in Chapter One, there is a long history of religious eunuchs, a history that is not just confined to Christianity. For instance, several pagan cults in GrecoRoman antiquity featured eunuchs, the most famous example being the cult of Cybele. This mother goddess, also known as the Magna Mater, had amongst her devotees the galli, who reputedly castrated themselves in the service of the deity. In the sphere of Hinduism, there still exist today the hijras who are associated with serving the mother goddess Bahuchara Mata (though there are also Christian and Muslim hijras); they too are understood to be self-castrators. The obvious question to ask about the existence of religious eunuchs is, why did certain cults feature the practice of self-castration?1 It is often thought that the galli were inspired by the example of Cybele’s consort Attis. He was her mortal lover, who (in one 68

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

version of the myth) castrated himself having been put into a state of frenzy by the goddess when she discovered he had another lover. But there are other theories propounded to account for the value attached to self-castration in ancient religion.2 These include the desire to increase the generative potency of the deity and the desire to become assimilated with the goddess, though Nock rejected these in favour of the idea that castration endowed the devotee with purity, which thus made him the ideal candidate for a sacred role.3 There are several factors identified to explain why the hijras castrate themselves.4 The hijras hold that it is through emasculation that they acquire their ritual power, and that only those who are castrated are real hijras.5 In Hinduism castration is paradoxically connected with generativity, due to the power that derives from asceticism and chastity. Since Bahuchara Mata is associated with fertility, the hijras are suitable agents for the goddess. Their especial attachment to Bahuchara Mata is also deemed appropriate as the goddess was identified with self-mutilation and abstinence from sexual activity. In addition, through castration the hijras achieve assimilation with the mother. The mother goddess was also attributed with the castration of her mortal consort, just as in the case of Cybele and Attis. Of course, the hijra lifestyle and practice of castration may attract individuals in the first place because of their innate transgendered identity, as several of the narratives supplied by Nanda indicate, though this may be a stereotypical construction.6 Regarding the case of early Christianity, the answer to why self-castration was embraced seems more straightforward: Christ’s words regarding ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 19.12) seemed to indicate that followers who castrated themselves would be especially valued. Although Jesus may have intended his words to be taken metaphorically, referring to celibacy, it is clear that physical castration was also understood in terms of chastity and purity, witness the Christian who requested permission to castrate himself so that he could demonstrate to pagans that Christianity was not associated with hanky panky.7 In the later case of the Skoptsy, however, although the importance of Christ’s assertion is known it is not certain that this is what initially incited the adoption of self-castration.8 Thus the reasons for the practice of self-castration in religion can be difficult to understand. There can exist apparently simple explanations, but also a multiplicity of options and hypotheses. Even in the case where more certain evidence exists, it is perhaps dangerous to accept this at face value; there may be other, unspoken, motives for self-castration. The fact that it has such a long history, and is found in diverse cultures, perhaps suggests that there is a more fundamental reason for its existence.

Eunuch clergy, monks and saints Whatever the reason or reasons for the occurrence of self-castration in early Christianity, what is certain is that the church took a dim view of self-castrates becoming clergy. In 325 the council of Nicaea banned such a circumstance.9 However, although the council of Nicaea was opposed to self-castrates being clergymen, it did not completely oppose the existence of eunuch clergy. Those 69

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

who had been castrated by physicians, by barbarians or by their masters could still become clergymen. The issue of conscious desire to be castrated was clearly the crucial issue. Barbarians and masters castrated people according to their own wishes, and ill health meant that people had to be castrated for the sake of life itself rather than for the reason that they wanted to become eunuchs. As with the imperial legislation then, loopholes existed which could justify or explain away castration which had in fact been voluntarily embraced. Eunuch clergymen are particularly evident in the history of the Byzantine empire. In the tenth century Liudprand famously remarked on the prevalence of eunuchs serving as bishops in the Orthodox church, prompted by his encounter with the bishop of Leukas who was indeed a eunuch.10 Liudprand complains that this was against canon law, but this was not necessarily the case, and he was no doubt motivated by hostility to Byzantium and western Christendom’s lack of experience of religious eunuchs. Also, Cardinal Humbert’s Bull excommunicating the patriarch Michael Keroularios in 1054 complains about the fact that Michael and his supporters were like Valesius in that they castrated their friends and made them not just clergy but bishops.11 In Byzantium the continued existence of court eunuchs meant that eunuchs remained familiar in the east, along with the essential practice of castration. This may have contributed to the greater acceptability of religious eunuchs, though it seems that there was an enthusiasm for castration in a Christian context anyway. Muqaddasi asserts in the tenth century that the Byzantines castrated their own children and dedicated them to church careers, ‘in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust’.12 In addition to the evidence for specific Byzantines being castrated for careers at the imperial court, there are indeed examples of specific Byzantines being castrated for the sake of religion. A prominent case is that of Nikephoros who was bishop of Miletos in the tenth century. His Life records that his parents intended him to have a religious career, and thus had him castrated when he was a child.13 He was enrolled amongst the imperial clergy. The example of the eunuch who had his nephew castrated due to Christian sentiment, featured in Theophylact of Ochrid’s twelfth-century In Defence of Eunuchs, although fictional has a certain weight.14 Further, the number of eunuchs who are met as clergy in Byzantium suggests that religion was a motivating factor for castration, despite the fact that in several instances castration was undergone for other reasons (e.g. punishment and ill health, allegedly) and religious careers could be embraced subsequent to court careers. A string of famous eunuch clergymen certainly distinguishes Byzantium.15 Several patriarchs of Constantinople have been identified as eunuchs. Probably the most famous is Ignatios the Younger, who was patriarch twice in the ninth century (847–858 and 867–877), and who is immortalised in mosaic in Hagia Sophia (Plate 5).16 Other firm examples of eunuch patriarchs are Niketas the Slav (766–780), Stephen (925–927), Polyeuktos (956–970) and Eustratios Garidas (1081–1084).17 Other cases are less certain. A late source reports that Germanos (715–733) had been castrated at the same time as his father was executed on the orders of Constantine IV for involvement in the murder of Constans II in 668.18 In the eleventh century Germanos is certainly depicted as a eunuch in the decoration 70

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

of the Cypriot church of St Nicholas of the Roof at Kakopetria.19 Some sources assert that Theophylact Lekapenos (933–956) was a eunuch.20 In some instances no sources identify a patriarch as a eunuch, but they are still suspected of being castrated. Such is the situation with regard to Constantine Leichoudes (1059–1064), whom Guilland suggests is a eunuch because he had been protovestiarios.21 It is worth adding that the patriarch Methodios (843–847) was reputed to be a natural eunuch.22 When arraigned for inappropriate sexual relations with a woman which had resulted in the birth of a child, he exposed his imperfect genitals to demonstrate that he was not capable of what he had been accused of.23 He reported that his genitals had been atrophied due to a miracle when he was in Rome. Being tormented by desire he prayed to St Peter for assistance, and the saint came to him at night and touched Methodios’ genitals, which were henceforth incapacitated. As Guilland observed, if eunuchs achieved the pinnacle of the Orthodox career of becoming patriarch of Constantinople, it is likely that there were also eunuchs holding other positions in the church.24 It is notable that some of the eunuchs who became patriarch are known to have attained ecclesiastical office previously. Niketas the Slav had been presbyter of the church of Holy Apostles, Stephen had been metropolitan of Amasea, and Germanos had been metropolitan of Kyzikos.25 Of other eunuch clergymen, the examples of the tenth-century bishops of Leukas and Miletos have already been met. Further cases can be cited. Leo, the bishop of Nicaea in Thrace who was martyred by the Bulgars in 815, was a eunuch.26 A eunuch was bishop of Kyzikos in 846.27 In the reign of Michael IV, the eunuch Antony Paches, a relative of the emperor, became the bishop of Nicomedia.28 Later in the eleventh century there is the famous case of John the metropolitan of Side, who has been encountered already in the context of his role at court.29 In the early twelfth century in his In Defence of Eunuchs Theophylact referred to several contemporary eunuch bishops, naming the archbishop of Thessalonike and the bishops of Pydna, Petra and Bulgarian Edessa.30 In the mid-twelfth century Nikephoros Basilakes is able at least to imagine a eunuch cleric (named Bagoas), if indeed the figure is not a historical person or based on one.31 In the Palaiologan period, the eunuch John, uncle of Nikephoros Gregoras, became bishop of Heraclea.32 The individuals listed thus far are drawn from Byzantine history, but it should not be forgotten that eunuch clergymen are also found in the later Roman empire.33 Eusebius notes the existence of Dorotheus a well-educated presbyter in Antioch, who was also put in charge of the purple dye works at Tyre by the emperor Diocletian.34 Dorotheus, whom Eusebius had heard speak in church, is described as a eunuch by nature from the time of his birth, suggesting that he was intersex. Clerics who were eunuchs by castration are met too. There is the case of Leontius, a cleric at Antioch, who associated with a woman called Eustolia, and castrated himself to demonstrate the purity of their relationship.35 Leontius lost his position, in accordance with canon law, but the emperor Constantius II subsequently appointed him bishop of Antioch. The Dialogue of Palladius about the Life of John Chrysostom reports that when Hercalides was deposed as bishop of Ephesus in the early fifth century he was replaced by a eunuch.36 71

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

Also in the early fifth century is the instance of the eunuch Tigrius, a presbyter in Constantinople known as a supporter of John Chrysostom.37 Sozomen reports that the eunuch was a barbarian, and had been a domestic slave but was freed by his master. From the late sixth century comes the example of Narses, who was a court eunuch but became the bishop of Ascalon.38 It seems that eunuchs could even become patriarch of Constantinople in the later Roman period: when Macedonius (496–511) was accused of indecent acts with boys it apparently emerged that he had been castrated.39 In the later Roman and Byzantine empires, being a clergyman was not the only religious role open to eunuchs. They could also become monks. Indeed, for eunuchs, the role of monk seems to have been far more common than that of clergyman.40 For instance, eunuch monks abound in the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus. There is Cosmas abbot of the lavra of Pharon, whose tomb John visited; Theodore the anchorite who turned sea water into fresh water on a voyage to Constantinople; and abbot John, whose monastery was at the ninth mile-post from Alexandria.41 In the sixth century Peter the patriarch of Jerusalem appointed John the eunuch, the abbot of the monastery of Martyrius, to be the abbot of the New Church.42 The existence of eunuch monks is further underlined by the phenomenon of the so-called ‘transvestite nuns’.43 These were women who disguised themselves as men to enter male monasteries. Interestingly, they did not pretend to be whole men, but rather eunuchs, whose features they more closely resembled, especially the lack of a beard. For the Byzantine empire, it can be remarked that many of the clergymen mentioned above were also monks. Ignatios the Younger, Polyeuktos and Eustratios Garidas were all monks before becoming patriarch. As for Nikephoros the bishop of Miletos, he became a monk after beginning his clerical career. He resided on Mt Latros before moving on to Mykale.44 Although the eunuch status of Symeon the New Theologian may be in doubt, it is clear that he was to be succeeded as the abbot of the monastery of St Mamas in the early eleventh century by the eunuch monk Arsenios.45 A further intriguing example is the monk Sabas, depicted in an eleventh-century manuscript of the homilies of John Chrysostom (Coislin 79), seemingly instructing the emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates in the homilies (Plate 8). Since Sabas is shown beardless it has been suggested that he was probably a eunuch.46 The emperor Alexios I Komnenos was entrusted to the care of a eunuch monk by his mother.47 From the late eleventh or early twelfth century there is the eunuch John the Faster, who founded the Petra monastery in Constantinople.48 John was reputedly castrated as a child due to ill health. The occurrence of eunuch monks in the later Roman and Byzantine empires is further demonstrated by the establishment of monasteries that were reserved for them.49 In the first half of the sixth century the so-called monastery of eunuchs, near Jericho, came into being. This is reported by Cyril of Scythopolis, who relates how the monastery was founded by eunuchs who had served the famous aristocrat Juliana Anicia in Constantinople.50 When their mistress died they came to the Great Lavra in Jerusalem to ask admittance from Sabas, whom they had met in the imperial city. They were eventually settled in a monastery of their own by 72

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

Alexander the abbot of the monasteries of the archbishop Elias near Jericho.51 A famous case of a eunuch monastery is that which was attached to the church of St Lazaros in Constantinople, built by the emperor Leo VI.52 In the eleventh century St Lazaros converted his monastic foundation of the Saviour on Mt Galesion in Asia Minor into a monastery for eunuchs.53 Later in the eleventh century the famous judge and historian Michael Attaleiates set up a hospice of the All-Merciful Christ, part of which was a monastery in his house in Constantinople, which he desired to be filled with monks who were eunuchs.54 A final definite case is provided by Theophylact of Ochrid, who recounts that the eunuch monk Symeon established a monastery for eunuchs in Thessalonike.55 It is probable that this Symeon is to be identified with Symeon the Sanctified, controversial hegoumenos of the monastery of Xenophon on Mt Athos in the late eleventh century.56 There are further examples of eunuch monasteries, though they are less certain. Of the two cases cited by Guilland, one is Leo VI’s monastery of St Lazaros, and the other is the monastery of Katharoi, built in the reign of Justin II by the eunuch Narses, a cubicularius.57 The only reason for identifying this monastery as one for eunuchs, however, is the name itself, which means ‘The Pure’. Thus, it must be considered a doubtful identification. In the ninth century, there existed on Mt Olympos at Pandemos another monastery known as ‘the monastery of eunuchs’. This appears in the Life of Antony the Younger, but the actual presence of eunuchs is not evident.58 Perhaps the monastery had once had eunuchs in it, or maybe the term was used in a metaphorical sense. Also on Mt Olympos was the monastery of the Agauroi, met in the eighth and ninth centuries.59 The Life of Eustratios, who was hegoumenos of the monastery in the ninth century, relates that the institution did not always bear the name of ‘Agauroi’ (meaning ‘The Illustrious Ones’, or perhaps a euphemism for ‘The Beggars’), but did so after eunuch monks were admitted to the monastery.60 One wonders if this is a case of inventing the past to explain the present. Further, Janin points out that the monastery was also known as the monastery of Agauros, an individual, so perhaps a group of eunuchs was not in question. In addition, he observes that the monastery was clearly not reserved exclusively for eunuchs, and there may not have been any eunuchs in it when Eustratios was alive. Despite these final qualified examples, there is no doubt that monasteries reserved for eunuchs existed in the later Roman and Byzantine empires. In addition to being clergymen and monks, or both at the same time, eunuchs could even attain holy status. There are eunuch martyrs and saints. Eunuchs as martyrs are of course more commonly met in the early Christian period.61 Under Diocletian, palace eunuchs were victims of his anti-Christian measures, and it is thought that Dorotheus and Gorgonius, who worked in the imperial palace in Nicomedia and were martyred, were eunuchs.62 Eunuchs were also martyred in Persia in the reign of Shapur II (309–379), including the old eunuch Ousthazades (who had reared the shah and was head of the royal household) and Azades (another palace eunuch).63 The martyr eunuch became a topos in Passions. There are, for instance, the cases of Largus and Smaragdus, Protus and Hyacinthus, Calocerus and Parthenius, John and Paul, Domninus, Hyacinthus, Nereus and Achilleus, 73

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

and Indes.64 Even if these are fictional individuals, they convey the message that eunuchs could be imagined as worthy Christian martyrs. In the twelfth century Theophylact of Ochrid listed in his In Defence of Eunuchs the examples of Indes, Hyacinthus, Protus, Ousthazades, Azades, and Theodore, to demonstrate that eunuchs featured amongst the martyrs.65 Full-blown eunuch saints seem to emerge in the Byzantine empire, and individuals who attained such status have already been met above as clergymen and/or monks.66 The most famous example is Ignatios the Younger, who became patriarch of Constantinople (Plate 5).67 Ignatios was the monastic name of the saint. He was originally called Niketas, but became a monk when his father the emperor Michael I was ousted from power by Leo V. At the same time as Niketas was forced to become a monk he was also castrated, along with his brother.68 Ignatios was particularly well-known for his sufferings at the hands of Bardas and Photios. Nikephoros the bishop of Miletos in the tenth century also became a saint, his Life appearing shortly after his death. The monk John the Faster was recognised as a saint too. Although his twelfthcentury Life is lost there exists an encomium written in the fourteenth century by Nikephoros Kallistos.69 Also in the fourteenth century, Nikephoros Gregoras wrote the Life of his uncle John, a eunuch and the bishop of Heraclea.70 A further case is that of Niketas the patrikios, who had a secular career before becoming a monk, and who was recognised as an iconophile saint.71 Other examples are more open to question. If the patriarch Germanos was indeed a eunuch he could be included in the list of eunuch saints, but his own Life does not report that he was castrated. There is also the case of Symeon the New Theologian, whose eunuch status is suspected by some but rejected by others. As was noted in the previous chapter, his Life, written by Niketas Stethatos, does not assert explicitly that he was a eunuch.

Conflicting attitudes Thus in the later Roman and Byzantine empires eunuchs can be found as clergymen, monks and holy men. Despite this fact it is clear that not everyone was comfortable with this situation. As has been seen with regard to clerical office, there was opposition to self-castrates becoming clergymen. Of course, not all eunuchs had embraced castration voluntarily, and the Council of Nicaea had exempted those who were castrated on the grounds of ill-health, or against their will by barbarians or their masters, presumably having in mind those who were slaves. What was not anticipated by the council was that native parents would castrate their own children (or that a native adult would castrate a relative who was a child), a situation that distinguished the Byzantine empire. This begs the question, what was the status of these eunuchs? Were they thought to be castrated voluntarily, or were they considered to be under the jurisdiction of others and thus not in control of the decision? Of course in Byzantium there were still eunuchs who owed (or supposedly owed) their condition to ill health or the power of nonnatives, but there were enough who were freely castrated by their own families to raise the question of how it was justified. Perhaps Liudprand’s observation 74

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

that Byzantium’s eunuch clergy flew in the face of canon law was not just an expression of western prejudice, or inaccurate, but reflected his knowledge that Byzantines castrated their own children. Thus the legitimacy of some Byzantine eunuch clergymen may have been a grey area. As was seen in relation to imperial legislation though, Byzantines were well able to ignore legal rulings, just as those who produced castrati in Italy in later times were able to disregard the threat of excommunication. However, the response of the eunuch who had castrated his nephew in Theophylact of Ochrid’s In Defence of Eunuchs is that although voluntary castration by adults was abhorrent, undertaken for sexual purposes, the castration of a consenting boy by his own family, was a respectable Christian act.72 Theophylact’s eunuch further justified castration on the grounds that it was akin to pruning a vine and that ascetics also altered their bodies through their tough regimen, thus countering the accusation that those who embraced castration were mutilating the image of God.73 The uneasiness that could be felt with regard to religious eunuchs is more evident in the sphere of monasticism. Eunuchs, together with beardless youths and children, were identified as a problematic group from the early days of the history of monasticism. This is clear, for instance, from the Lives of the early fathers of Palestinian monasticism.74 Euthymius stated that it was forbidden for a beardless youth to be admitted to a lavra.75 When Sabas became abbot he ruled that youths were not to be allowed entrance to the lavra.76 He transmitted this ruling to the abbots of other lavra, asserting that it was an ancient law accepted by the early fathers, originating with the fathers of the desert of Scetis. Sabas also ruled that a eunuch with a face like a woman’s was prohibited from dwelling in the lavra.77 The prohibition against the admittance of a eunuch or a beardless youth into a lavra is in fact the first regulation in the Sinai monastic rule of Mar Saba.78 Famously, similar concerns mark Byzantine typika, such as the imperial typika for monastic life on Mt Athos.79 Together with youths, children and females, eunuchs were expressly forbidden to settle on the holy mountain. The ban on the beardless is inscribed in the typika of the emperors John I Tzimiskes and Constantine IX Monomachos, and repeated in the chrysobull-typikon of Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425).80 Regarding Mt Athos, it is known that when the eunuch Symeon the Sanctified came to the mountain in 1078, and settled in the monastery of Xenophon, he was subsequently chased from the mountain, together with his three beardless disciples, by the other monks.81 The obvious question to ask is, why do these monastic texts show hostility towards eunuchs? In general, the texts themselves do not explain their attitude, and one has to assume what the reason is.82 The usual answer is that it was thought that eunuchs (along with youths and children) were a sexual danger.83 Chitty explains it by referring to the monastic ‘homosexual obsession’.84 Certainly there was a view in antiquity that eunuchs were corrupt and lascivious beings, and they were commonly thought of as passive sexual partners for men.85 Given such concepts, it is understandable that monastic institutions would show some anxiety about eunuchs. Sabas’ concern about a eunuch having a woman’s face makes sense in this context. Non-eunuch monks might fall victim to lust if they encountered a feminine eunuch. 75

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

Such is the hostility towards eunuchs repeatedly expressed in monastic texts that some Byzantinists have even asserted that eunuchs were not allowed to become monks.86 This is patently untrue, as has been seen, but can also be illustrated by some of the very texts and documents which assert the ban. Euthymius did permit a eunuch by birth, called Gabriel and described as having a feminine face, to take a cell in the lavra.87 Euthymius’ discomfort is however reflected by the fact that Gabriel was forbidden to leave his cell, a condition he observed for twenty-five years. Gabriel went on to become hegoumenos of the monastery of the protomartyr St Stephen, at the wish of its founder the empress Eudocia.88 As for Sabas, it is known that he sent eunuchs who wished to enter his lavra to the coenobium of Theodosius for training and preparation.89 The imperial typika can also reveal a less clear cut reality. The typikon of Tzimiskes seems to allow that consent by the Protos (the leading monk on Mt Athos) and all the hegoumenoi might be given for the welcome and tonsuring of eunuchs (as well as of children and the beardless), and certainly that the ban might be contravened.90 This latter situation is confirmed by the typikon of Monomachos, given that it reiterates the exclusion.91 It is illuminating to turn to other texts. Although the twelfth-century typikon of the sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira banned eunuchs it allows for making exception for eunuchs who were wealthy.92 The case of Symeon the Sanctified is also instructive. Although he was chased off Mt Athos, he was restored by the Paradosis of 1089. This was issued by the Protos Paul, but elicited it seems by pressure from the emperor Alexios I Komnenos. The document did, however, declare that Symeon was a unique case: he was the only eunuch allowed to live on the holy mountain. Given the unease which could exist about eunuch monks, it might be imagined that this accounts for the existence of monasteries reserved for them.93 The case of Lazaros’ conversion of the monastery of the Saviour into a separate eunuch institution seems to lend some support to this hypothesis. The story of his decision is recorded in relation to the eunuch monk Stephen, who wished to return to the Anastasis monastery from the eunuch monastery, but whose death at the monastery of the Saviour was foretold by Lazaros.94 The Life of Lazaros asserts that the eunuch monastery had been set up because ‘scandals’ had occurred between the eunuch monks and the other monks. Unfortunately the reasons for the establishment of eunuch monasteries are not always provided by the sources which mention them. This could mean that negative factors were at play. For instance, the foundation of a eunuch monastery in Thessalonike by Symeon perhaps resulted from the fact that he was rejected by the monks of Mt Athos, if it is accepted that the two Symeons are identical. In the case of Leo VI’s eunuch monastery of St Lazaros, it is easier, however, to imagine positive factors. As has been observed before, this emperor seems to have had a particular interest in eunuchs.95 He was close to several eunuchs at his court, and issued laws concerning them, most notably allowing them the right to adopt. He was also known for his love of church music, which may have contributed to his interest, for the singing voices of eunuchs were appreciated. It has been suggested that the monastery of St Lazaros had a role in the training of castrati singers.96 Whether the emperor was motivated 76

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

positively is of course a matter of conjecture, but where explicit reasons are given for the foundation of other eunuch monasteries, the hypothesis that eunuchs were being deliberately separated is indeed undermined. In the case of the monastery of eunuchs in Judaea it is clear that it was the eunuchs themselves who wished to be segregated. They were first sent to the coenobium of Theodosius by Sabas, but then they asked the archbishop to provide them with their own monastery. The archbishop requested that Alexander the hegoumenos of the monasteries of the archbishop Elias admit them, and it was Alexander who acceded to their desire for a separate institution. Thus in this instance it seems that the eunuchs, who had all worked for Juliana Anicia, had developed a strong group identity which they wanted to maintain in their monastic life. Even more significant is the case of the eunuch monastery of Attaleiates, for he gives an overtly positive explanation for his decision to found a monastery that would have eunuchs as its personnel. In his Diataxis he asserts that he requires eunuchs because they possess apatheia (passionlessness).97 This quality was necessary in the monks because the church of the Prodromos (the chapel attached to his house in Constantinople) loves apatheia, and also because the monastery was in the middle of Constantinople and in close proximity to the agora, and thus dangerous for bearded monks. One wonders if there was a further personal dimension to Attaleiates’ decision. Amongst those listed as making donations to the monastery is John the praipositos, who is identified as Attaleiates’ secretary (grammatikos).98 As he is also described as a chamberlain (epi tou koitonos), it is possible that he was a eunuch.99 It seems that he went on to become a monk himself.100 However, even if there was a strong connection between Attaleiates and John which affected the former’s decision, there is no doubt that the importance of apatheia is emphatic. Eunuchs were valued as monks because they were innately passionless, that is they were more capable of a chaste monastic life than their bearded counterparts as they would not fall prey to weaknesses of the flesh. The idea that eunuch monasteries existed in order to isolate this suspect category of man thus falls down. It could be argued that the case is weak anyway, as surely more examples of eunuch monasteries would be attested in the historical record if it were true. The instance of Lazaros of Mt Galesion and the monastery of the Saviour actually undermines the hypothesis rather than supports it, since it demonstrates that the separation of the eunuchs was an unusual circumstance: it was more normal for eunuch and non-eunuch monks to live together.101 This situation is reflected also by the stories of the ‘transvestite nuns’: they disguised themselves as eunuchs to gain access to male monasteries in general, not to eunuch only monasteries. The belief that eunuchs were naturally chaste is not one that is unique to the Diataxis of Michael Attaleiates. Despite it entirely contradicting the perception that eunuchs were lustful sexual beings, the concept was commonplace.102 Christ’s assertion regarding eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, whether taken literally or metaphorically, seems to be predicated on the understanding that eunuchs were celibate individuals.103 In Leontius of Neapolis’ Life of John the Almsgiver a story is told of a eunuch monk who felt able to travel with a young girl because he believed that Satan did not send temptation to eunuchs.104 It has been suggested 77

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

that eunuchs were deployed by authors of Passions because they represented the Christian ideal of chastity.105 Castration was certainly associated with sexual renunciation, as has been seen for example in the cases of those early Christians who voluntarily became, or wanted to become, eunuchs. The perception that being castrated led to loss of sexual desire is also seen in instances of mystical castration, where Christians tormented by sexual desire would dream of being castrated by a holy figure, such as an angel. 106 One is reminded of the story about Methodios, who was assailed by lust during a visit to Rome and was aided by St Peter, though according to the tale this resulted in physical alteration. The association of angels with mystical castration is interesting in itself, as these beings could be taken as exemplars of chastity themselves. The monastic existence could be described as ‘the angelic life’.107 Given that angels were also commonly confounded with eunuchs, especially in Byzantine thought, this perhaps emphasises again the concept of the chastity of eunuchs.108 The idea that eunuchs were sexually safe is also reflected of course by the ancient belief that they were appropriate companions or guardians for women. It is notable that later Roman and Byzantine texts envisage eunuchs as suitable male personnel for nunneries. 109 In his novel on monasticism the emperor Justinian I discusses the role of stewards (apocrisiarii) in monasteries, and opines that convents should also have two or three stewards who should, if possible, be eunuchs or old men, and be renowned for their chastity.110 Similar sentiment is found in the twelfth-century typikon of the empress Eirene Komnene for the nunnery of the Mother of God Kecharitomene.111 This lays down that the posts of steward (oikonomos) and assistant-steward were always to be held by eunuchs.112 Further, the two priests in the nunnery were to be eunuchs, as was the spiritual father.113 The doctor for the nunnery was to be a eunuch too, or at least an old man.114 A Byzantine author famous for his declaration of the chastity of eunuchs is Theophylact, a prolific writer who was archbishop of Ochrid in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.115 In a poem on a debauched eunuch he asserts that this individual was unusual, for, in fact, purity was all but the natural privilege of eunuchs.116 This idea is treated at greater length in his In Defence of Eunuchs, a text which has received much attention in recent years.117 It was probably written in the early twelfth century for his brother, who was a eunuch. It consists mainly of a dialogue between a monk and a eunuch concerning the latter’s castration of his nephew. The monk speaks first, attacking the action, then the eunuch responds to the criticisms at length. Theophylact presents the dialogue as a report of a conversation he had overheard in the streets of Thessalonike. The response of the eunuch includes the argument that eunuchs make better monks than whole men because they are indeed naturally pure, and cannot experience erections or ejaculations.118 Ironically, the idea that eunuchs were preternaturally chaste could lead to attacks upon them. As Ringrose has emphasised, it could be objected that eunuchs did not deserve plaudits for their self-control as it was inherent rather than achieved by their own exertions.119 Effectively, the eunuch fast track to purity, 78

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

via castration, was cheating. Basil of Caesarea opined that eunuchs were chaste without reward, since they owed their condition to the knife (OŠTOISVFRONOcSI M_NkMISTUADI‘SIDˆROY).120 However, despite this objection, eunuchs could still attain holiness,121 and be presented as struggling to attain the ascetic lifestyle, just like bearded men. Paul Helladicus records graphically the torment experienced by the eunuch monk Eutropius when he became sexually infatuated with his young godson.122 The eunuch wanted to have sex with the boy, and was so filled with desire that he experienced erection and ejaculation, in spite of his efforts to control himself. Eventually God granted him respite due to the humility of his soul. Ignatios the Younger is also depicted as having to labour to accomplish selfcontrol, including mastery of the desires of the flesh.123 Niketas the patrikios is described as having to cleanse himself of the mire of passions too.124 As for John of Heraclea, he had to work doubly hard to overcome desire, since as a eunuch he was a feminised being, and women had less ability to control themselves than men did.125 These instances show that eunuchs did have to prove themselves in the arena of the passions, just like whole men. The existence of the idea of eunuchs as sexual beings allowed for this possibility, even though the contradictory idea that eunuchs were naturally chaste was equally strong. Interestingly, Theophylact asserts that the purity associated with eunuchs was a characteristic that they had to be willing to embrace.126 There were eunuchs who did not make the effort. This stance allowed conflicting images of eunuchs to co-exist.

Eunuchs, religion and the imperial court So far this chapter has been primarily concerned with eunuchs in religious roles, but another dimension of eunuchs and religion to consider is the interest of secular eunuchs in religion. Just like secular women and non-eunuch men, these eunuchs could have particular religious attachments, and could express their piety (as well as their status) through acts of patronage. Court eunuchs, as agents of emperors, played a part in the attainment of imperial policy, the scope of which included religion. In the later Roman empire, the grand chamberlain Eusebius is as familiar from the writings of Christians as from the history of Ammianus Marcellinus, due to his association with the struggle between the Arians and the Nicenes.127 Due to the presentation of Eusebius in Athanasius’ History of the Arians, the grand chamberlain became a staple part of the narratives of church historians. Athanasius describes how Eusebius was despatched to the Nicene bishop of Rome, Liberius, in order to win him over.128 The role of a eunuch in the service of a heresy must have been a gift to the Nicene authors, given the negative connotations they could draw upon.129 Whether the eunuch was a convinced Arian himself, or merely expressing the interests of the emperor Constantius II, must be open to question.130 Presumably those palace eunuchs who were martyred under Diocletian suffered for their own beliefs. In the sixth century the chamberlain Misael was known as a keen Monophysite, who had wanted to embark on a religious career even before being forced to do so when he 79

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

was exiled after the exposure of a plot against Justin I.131 In the Byzantine empire, iconophile chamberlains were punished by the iconoclast emperor Leo IV.132 These included the parakoimomenos Theophanes, who died a martyr.133 It is likely that these victims included eunuchs.134 Thus eunuchs could be known as devotees of Christianity or diverse forms of it, and celebrated for even dying for their beliefs. But eunuchs expressed their religious attachments in less dramatic ways too, such as patronage. This could range from commissioning religious artefacts to undertaking charitable works to founding their own monastic institutions. The most famous example of a eunuch patron is probably Basil Lekapenos, who is renowned as a patron of the arts in general.135 Amongst the objects associated with him is the Limburg reliquary, one of the spoils of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204.136 This highly decorative object contained a cross which incorporated fragments of the relic of the true cross, an item that had been produced under Constantine VII and Romanos II. However, also contained in the reliquary were a range of other relics, enclosed in individual compartments covered by panels. The frame bears a long inscription, which celebrates Basil’s role as donor. Another celebrated religious artefact associated with a eunuch, and one already mentioned in this book, is the Leo Bible, which has been dated to the tenth century (Vat. Reg. gr. 1).137 This was commissioned by Leo the patrikios, praipositos and sakellarios for his brother’s monastery of St Nicholas. Each book of the Bible was accompanied by a frontispiece, but only the first volume of the manuscript survives. Again, inscriptions are crucial in commemorating the role of the donor, who is depicted in the frontispiece presenting his Bible to the Mother of God (Plate 14). A further example of a religious artefact produced under the patronage of a court eunuch is an enamel and gold pendant in the form of a triptych, which has been dated to the twelfth century.138 When the decorated wings of the pendant are opened they reveal an image of Christ enthroned flanked by the Virgin and John the Baptist, with the archangels Michael and Gabriel above them. On the wings are depicted the twelve apostles, six on each side. In addition, at Christ’s feet is an image of the donor himself, who is identified by inscriptions as Constantine the proedros, and who is depicted without a beard so is probably a eunuch. It is also worth mentioning the example of Leo Nikerites, the eunuch general associated with the reign of Alexios I Komnenos. Weyl Carr comments that ‘[h]e was apparently a bibliophile’, noting the production of manuscripts of the Octateuch and an illustrated commentary on the Book of Job for him.139 Court eunuchs, however, were not just patrons of portable religious objects.140 Like other members of secular society, they founded churches and monasteries, or took over extant monasteries. In the fifth century, the chamberlain Calopodius built an oratory of the archangel Michael at Parthenopolis, and asked Daniel the Stylite to supply monks for it.141 Also in the fifth century, the praepositus Gratissimus built a church dedicated to St Cyriacus, beyond Constantinople’s Golden Gate.142 Amantius, the praepositus sacri cubiculi of Anastasius, built a church of St Thomas the Apostle in Constantinople.143 As was seen above, the eunuch Narses built the monastery of the Katharoi.144 Thedore the Stoudite praises the eunuch 80

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

protospatharios Theophylact who built a church and monastery in order to atone for his failings in life.145 In the ninth century, when Constantine the Paphlagonian was disgraced and made a monk, it was to the monastery of the eunuch Samonas that he was despatched.146 This was the institution named Ta Speira in Damatry.147 Basil Lekapenos also had his own monastery, which was dedicated to St Basil.148 In the eleventh century Symeon the protovestiarios founded a monastery on Mt Olympos,149 and Nikephoritzes held ownership of the hebdomon monastery.150 A late example is found in the fourteenth century: the eunuch John, who was the megas doux of Trebizond, founded the monastery of the Saviour of the Pharos, near Trebizond.151 If Christopher the protovestiarios of Leo VI was a eunuch, he provides another instance, for he founded a monastery, the dedication of which the emperor himself participated in.152 The founding or ownership of monasteries was not just a matter of piety, but could be undertaken for reasons of status or due to more practical concerns. Byzantines could view monasteries as places of retirement, either short-term or long-term.153 Monastic life could be embraced with enthusiasm, or be enforced upon one as punishment, as in the case of Constantine the Paphlagonian above, who was accused of being too intimate with the empress Zoe Karbonopsina.154 When John the orphanotrophos fell from favour he was first exiled to the monastery of Monobata.155 Of eunuchs who willingly retired to monasteries, those of Juliana Anicia have already been met. An earlier case is provided by Gratissimus; when he retired from office he became a monk in the monastery of his church of St Cyriacus. Another instance is that of Symeon the protovestiarios, who had served Constantine VIII and objected to the new regime of Michael IV, so went to Mt Olympos and became a monk in the monastery which he had founded himself.156 An example of a (possibly) more dedicated decision to embrace the monastic life is that of Niketas the patrikios, who had had a distinguished secular career under Eirene, but then embarked on a monastic career. Also of interest is the case of the proedros Nikephoros, who determined to become a monk after surviving an earthquake.157 Presumably he took this step as an act of gratitude to God. If Symeon the New Theologian was indeed a eunuch, then he too provides an instance of a court eunuch turning to a religious career.158 A definite example is Stephen the megas droungarios, who gave up his secular career to become a monk during the reign of Nikephoros III Botaneiates.159 He settled on Mt Athos and became better known as Symeon the Sanctified. Notably, just as secular eunuchs could become religious eunuchs, religious eunuchs could become secular eunuchs. In addition to those examples where eunuchs resumed a court career after a spell of monastic exclusion, there are more striking illustrations. Theodore Krateros, a eunuch at the court of Theophilos renowned for challenging an Arab horseman and becoming one of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion, was originally a cleric. In the eleventh century the eunuch Nikephoros, who had been a clergyman, was made stratopedarch by the emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, and given the title of raiktor.160 Skylitzes comments that this Nikephoros had ‘rejected the priesthood in favour of worldly distinction and glory’. However, there were also eunuchs who combined both religious and 81

EUNUCHS AND RELI G I O N

court careers. In the tenth century there is the diverting case of the eunuch John.161 He was a cleric who became a monk after being rebuked by Constantine VII for his bad behaviour, but during the reign of Romanos II he gave up the monastic habit and joined in the pleasures of the court as one of the emperor’s chamberlains, to the disapproval of the patriarch Polyeuktos. When Romanos died, John became a monk again. A more impressive example is that of John the orphanotrophos, who was a monk as well as the de facto controller of the empire.162 It is reported that he also had ambitions to become the patriarch of Constantinople.163 In the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos, the ‘satrap’ of Bulgaria was a eunuch monk named Basil.164 A further prominent example is John the metropolitan of Side, who played an important political role at the courts of Michael VII Doukas and Nikephoros III Botaneiates.165 It was even possible for court eunuchs who had retired for the sake of a religious career to continue to play a part in the political arena. An instance is provided by Symeon the Sanctified. Soon after he became a monk, Alexios Komnenos utilised him as a mediator with the rebel Basilakes in Thessalonike.166 The fact that the emperor subsequently was influential in the restoration of Symeon to Mt Athos is suggestive of his gratitude, or at least of the continued interaction of the secular and religious worlds.

Conclusion In Byzantium, then, eunuchs clearly were able to fill religious roles as clergy and monks (sometimes simultaneously), and could even be recognised as holy. There was a positive perception of eunuchs which could be deployed to justify these spiritual positions, though it flew in the face of a co-existing hostile attitude. Despite official concerns regarding castration, in Byzantium parents and relatives could imbue their castration of prepubertal kin with a religious significance. It is also evident, perhaps unsurprisingly, that eunuchs, as members of Byzantine society, shared the values of their peers, and could have strong religious attachments and engage in acts of pious patronage, funding the creation of religious artefacts and institutions. Further, it can be concluded that it is possible to overdraw the distinction between court eunuchs and religious eunuchs. Secular eunuchs could turn to religious careers, religious eunuchs could embrace secular careers, and some eunuchs combined both. And even when a secular eunuch had entered the religious life, they could still have a political role to play. There existed a more fluid reality.

82

Plate 1

Relief of the Assyrian royal court, © The Trustees of the British Museum

PLATES

Plate 2

Relief of a beardless figure, Persepolis, photograph by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones

84

Plate 3 Theodora panel, San Vitale, Ravenna, photograph by Liz James

PLATES

Plate 4 Mosaic of archangel Gabriel, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Photograph and Fieldwork Archives, Washington DC

86

PLATES

Plate 5 Mosaic of Ignatios the Younger, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Photograph and Fieldwork Archives, Washington DC

87

PLATES

Plate 6

Emperor with courtiers, Coislin 79, Folio 2, Bibliothèque nationale de France

88

PLATES

Plate 7 Emperor with John Chrysostom, archangel Michael and the grapheus, Coislin 79, Folio 2v, Bibliothèque nationale de France

89

PLATES

Plate 8 France

Emperor with Sabas the monk, Coislin 79, Folio 2bis, Bibliothèque nationale de

90

Plate 9

Illustration of the chief black eunuch of the Ottoman empire, © The Trustees of the British Museum

PLATES

91

PLATES

Plate 10 Engraving showing probably Gaetano Berenstadt, Francesca Cuzzoni Sandoni and Francesco Bernardi (‘Senesino’), © National Portrait Gallery, London

Plate 11 Portrait group: The singer Farinelli and friends by Jacopo Amigoni, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne

92

PLATES

Plate 12 Portrait of Rauzzini with his dog Turk by Joseph Hutchison, The Holburne Museum of Art, Bath

Plate 13

Photograph of palace eunuchs of China, The Palace Museum, Beijing

93

PLATES

Plate 14 Leo the sakellarios presents the Bible to the Theotokos, Vat. Reginensis gr. 1, Folio 2v, Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican), Vatican City

94

PLATES

Plate 15 St Nicholas with abbot Makar and Constantine the protospatharios, Vat. Reginensis gr. 1, Folio 3r, Copyright Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican), Vatican City

95

7 IM AGES AND IDENTI TI ES OF EUNUC HS

Introduction Eunuchs tend to be subject to the comments of others, rather than the creators of their own stories. This chapter will explore the images and identities of eunuchs that are found in the later Roman and Byzantine empires. These could vary dramatically. Eunuchs could be presented as utterly treacherous as well as utterly loyal, and as sexually voracious as well as inherently pure. Issues of gender recur in the question of the identity of eunuchs, and the view that they were neither male nor female was expressed. Recently Kathryn Ringrose has proposed that a shift in the perception of eunuchs occurred in the Byzantine empire, with the emergence of a positive third gender identity for them.1 This chapter will be particularly concerned to consider this view, and will suggest that in fact the co-existence of multiple identities remained the norm. Further topics for investigation will be whether there are any instances of eunuchs creating their own identity, and the reactions of non-Byzantines to the empire’s eunuchs and how these fed into the image of Byzantium itself.

Later Roman hostile views of eunuchs Later Roman sources, especially those of the fourth century AD, are infamous for their hostility to eunuchs.2 Court eunuchs attract particular venom. The grand chamberlain Eusebius dominates Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the reign of Constantius II, and is depicted as an evil influence upon the emperor. It is alleged that Eusebius was not just concerned with the interests of Constantius, but exerted himself for his own benefit, increasing his wealth and power. His hostility towards the general Ursicinus is motivated in part by thwarted greed, for the eunuch had demanded that the general give him his house in Antioch but Ursicinus had refused.3 Eusebius’ execution in the reign of Julian is viewed as entirely justified.4 Ammianus is also censorious of court eunuchs in general. He observes, for instance, that when eunuchs retire from imperial service they seek to avoid those whom they had harmed whilst they held office.5 The powerful grand chamberlain Eutropius was subject to a concerted attack in two invectives by Claudian.6 These dwell on the objectionable character of the eunuch and his bad 96

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

government. For example, he is depicted as harsh and avaricious.7 The Historia Augusta is also notable for its discontent with the political influence of court eunuchs. Once again, greed is a common complaint, as is the subjection of the emperor.8 One senses that the intense hatred shown towards eunuchs by these sources is sparked by the fact that in the later Roman period eunuchs became a regular fixture of the imperial court and acquired influence and power. This situation irked the traditional male elite who thus gave vent to their ire at these slaves and ex-slaves operating in spheres beyond their expected roles. However, it is clear that there could be hostility towards eunuchs in general, not just towards those eunuchs employed at court. Basil of Caesarea’s infamous letter to Simplicia was apparently prompted by this elite woman’s protest at the ordination of one of her slaves without her permission.9 She threatened Basil with her slaves and eunuchs. Basil’s responding letter dwells on the negative attributes of eunuchs. They are characterised, amongst other things, as envious, corrupt, quick-tempered, gluttonous, money-mad, cruel, insatiable and jealous.10 Thus there was received wisdom about the nature and character of eunuchs, and this was hostile. These negative reactions towards eunuchs could also engage with the gender identity and sexual behaviour of eunuchs. The most sustained treatment of these themes is in Claudian’s invectives on Eutropius, especially the first invective.11 Regarding the sex life of the eunuch, Claudian asserts that Eutropius had had male lovers, dwelling in particular on the example of Ptolemy.12 But it is the gender identity of the eunuch which preoccupies Claudian most. He makes much of the idea that as a eunuch Eutropius has become feminised, if not female, and thus should have no place in the arena of public affairs and warfare. Lamenting that Eutropius has become a consul, Claudian exclaims he would rather have a man hold the honour.13 Commenting on the eunuch’s involvement in war, Claudian describes Eutropius as an Amazon, and asserts that he should have devoted himself to the female art of spinning instead.14 The advent of a eunuch consul and his exercising of authority is presented as an inversion of societal norms, with eunuchs taking on male roles and men those of women.15 However, Claudian also envisages eunuchs as neither men nor women, but as a third sex. This is voiced by Bellona, the goddess of war, when she is disguised as the wife of the Greuthungian Tarbigilus. She declares that another sex opposes her husband as Rome is led by eunuchs.16 Even more striking is Roma’s description of eunuchs as an ‘unfortunate band’, rejected by one sex and not embraced by the other.17 Elements of these views are shared by other later Roman authors. Regarding feminisation, Ammianus makes a rare reflection on the gender of eunuchs when he observes that the prefect of the Armenians, Cylaces, was good at cajoling like a woman because he was a eunuch.18 Basil of Caesarea is more explicit, describing eunuchs in his roll call of their vices as unmanly (kNANDRON) and effeminate (UHLYDRI}DEQ). The sexual activity of eunuchs is dwelt on by Basil of Ancyra in his tract On the True Purity of Virginity.19 He warns virgins of the danger posed by eunuchs, for they can still feel desire and want to have sex, even though frustrated by the lack of climax. Basil of Ancyra has in mind post-pubertal eunuchs, but sexual desire being experienced by eunuchs is attested more generally. Paul Helladicus’ 97

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

account of the lust the eunuch Eutropius felt for his young godson, which culminated in ejaculation, lingers in the mind.20 Basil of Caesarea can characterise eunuchs as mad for women (GYNAIKOMANqQ). Most interesting is the view that eunuchs were a third sex, since it challenges ancient and modern norms.21 Basil of Caesarea hints at this perception, for despite saying eunuchs were unmanly he also describes them as unwomanly (kUHLY). Claudius Mamertinus, like Claudian, is more explicit, opining that eunuchs were exiled from the fellowship of human kind since they belonged to neither sex.22 Epiphanius of Salamis also subscribes to the view that eunuchs were neither men nor women.23 Most emphatic of all is the Historia Augusta which attributes similar sentiment to Severus Alexander, reporting that he asserted that eunuchs were a third type of human.24 Thus it is evident that in the later Roman empire hostile views of eunuchs existed. These are often found in connection with verdicts on court eunuchs, but clearly had a more general application. The negative assessments could dwell on the character of eunuchs, attributing them with vices such as greed and cruelty, but could also focus on aspects of sex and gender. Eunuchs could be considered lustful and sexually active, and understood as unmanly feminised beings, as well as something completely different from man or woman.

Transformation to a positive view of eunuchs in Byzantium In her work on Byzantine eunuchs, which is particularly concerned with gender, Ringrose has developed an argument that in contrast to the hostile categorisation of eunuchs in the later Roman empire there emerged in Byzantium a positive construct of eunuch identity, which became the norm.25 She dated this transformation to the tenth century at the latest, indicating the eighth and ninth centuries as turning points too. She suggests that the greater integration of eunuchs in Byzantine society, due to the growing number of native eunuchs, played a part in the emergence of this positive image. The construct, she argues, took the form of recognising eunuchs as a third gender. Ringrose seems to have in mind court eunuchs in particular, for she asserts that their acculturation to the role of perfect servant was intimately associated with their identification as a third gender. For instance, they were trained to particular modes of behaviour, and wore distinctive dress. In the formulation of her views Ringrose has been particularly influenced by an early twelfth-century text by Theophylact of Ochrid, his so-called In Defence of Eunuchs.26 This was written by Theophylact for his eunuch brother, usually identified as Demetrios. The bulk of the text is presented as a dialogue between a monk and a eunuch, the monk attacking castration and eunuchs, the eunuch responding to his charges and claiming the majority of the text of the dialogue. The eunuch does indeed make a very striking case. In the course of his response he does dwell on the changed circumstances of Byzantine society, noting for instance the outmoded views of the apostolic canons and later Roman imperial legislation. He asserts that Byzantine eunuchs are in no way comparable to those found amongst the Persians or Arabs. He observes that all individuals must be judged on their own merits, and that although there might be some bad eunuchs the majority 98

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

are good. Indeed, he goes on to declare that eunuchs have a natural purity, which ascetics cannot match. The view that eunuchs were on the whole naturally pure is also found in one of Theophylact’s poems, as Ringrose points out, suggesting that this was the accepted wisdom of the time.27 In his In Defence of Eunuchs Theophylact also includes an etymology of the word eunuch which is explicitly positive, unlike the more neutral ‘guardian of the bed’ reading. Theophylact notes that the term eunuch derived from the fact that such individuals were well-minded (E~NOOcN).28 Ringrose asserts that this illustrates how the perception of eunuchs had transformed in Byzantine society.29 A potential problem with Ringrose’s thesis is that negative views of eunuchs continued to be voiced in Byzantium.30 Even Theophylact can assail a eunuch for his corrupt and immoral lifestyle.31 However, Ringrose is not unaware of this fact, and she addresses it. For her, such hostile comments are outdated stereotypical rhetoric, topoi which can surface in Byzantine writing but which do not undermine the new norm of positive thinking about eunuchs.32 As Theophylact says, there may be bad eunuchs but they are the exception rather than the rule. Ringrose has thus developed an argument that makes Byzantine thought about eunuchs very neat. In the middle Byzantine period there emerged a positive identity for eunuchs which recognised them as a third gender. This was the ideological norm, unaffected by the reiteration of contrasting negative views. But is Ringrose correct? In the following sections I will explore images and views of eunuchs in the later Roman and Byzantine empires further, and suggest that the position is not so clear cut.

Later Roman positive views of eunuchs To begin with, it is important to acknowledge that positive views of eunuchs could exist in the later Roman empire, despite the impression of overwhelming hostility.33 For instance, Ammianus Marcellinus can single out a eunuch for praise: Eutherius, the grand chamberlain of Ammianus’ hero Julian.34 This eunuch is credited with such admirable qualities as intelligence, good-living, kindness, temperance, loyalty and the dispensing of good advice. Ammianus, in contrast to Theophylact, asserts that a good eunuch was the exception to the rule. He declares that he searched the records of history to find another such paragon, and could only come up with Menophilus, a eunuch of the king of Pontus Mithridates VI.35 This eunuch was charged with the care of Mithridates’ daughter Drypetina, whom he cured of a disease, but when he feared she would be captured by the Romans, he killed her to protect her from violation and then killed himself. Even this case fails to impress Ammianus fully, as he observed that nothing else about Menophilus is known. Perhaps this was a one off display of glory, he wonders. It is clear then that Ammianus favours a hostile view of eunuchs, but he does reveal an alternative positive vision, where virtue exists, and dedication and loyalty are key qualities of eunuchs. It must not be forgotten that Ammianus, like several of the famous later Roman sources which revile eunuchs, is deliberately using negative rhetoric to serve his own purpose. The majority of Ammianus’ comments on eunuchs are 99

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

located in his account of the reign of Constantius II, the villain to Julian’s hero. The contrasting treatment of their grand chamberlains Eusebius and Eutherius mirrors Ammianus’ presentation of the emperors themselves. Likewise, Claudian’s invectives on Eutropius further the political goals of Stilicho, the leading figure in the government of the western empire, and Basil of Caesarea defends himself to Simplicia by going on the attack. These authors are not impartial commentators. Despite Ammianus’ asseverations, there were positive assessments of eunuchs in antiquity, as has already been seen in this book. Both Herodotus and Xenophon testify to the concept of the eunuch as loyal agent, in their discussions of Persian court eunuchs. Xenophon is of course well known for his presentation of Cyrus the Great’s rationalisation of the use of eunuchs at court, but no less interesting is his account of the eunuchs of Panthea the wife of Abradatas.36 When Abradatas is killed in battle Panthea commits suicide, and her eunuchs then kill themselves too. This behaviour echoes to a certain extent that attributed to Menophilus by Ammianus, suggesting an ideological expectation of how eunuch attendants would act. A eunuch comparable to Eutherius is found in the history of Polybius.37 This is the eunuch Aristonicus, the servant of Ptolemy V (204–180 BC). He is said to have been a capable talker and fair-minded, and naturally kind. In addition it is asserted that he proved himself a man, and was a natural soldier and engaged in military matters. As with Ammianus’ verdict on Eutherius, it is indicated that Aristonicus was unusual in possessing these good qualities, but they are commonly enough associated with eunuchs not to cause surprise. Favourable and hostile assessments of eunuchs co-existed. More emphatic positive views of eunuchs in the later Roman empire have been identified by some scholars, often in the specific context of Christianity. Particularly striking is the work of Boulhol and Cochelin, as they contrast the stereotypical negative views of eunuchs with the favourable ones that can be found too: their study focuses on the ‘rehabilitation’ of the eunuch in hagiography.38 As has been seen, especially in the previous chapter, eunuchs can feature in Passions or Lives as holy individuals. Considering such sources in the later Roman period, Boulhol and Cochelin argue that in these eunuchs are depicted simply as men, and suggest that the authors were drawing on the metaphorical understanding of the word eunuch to provide models of chastity for other Christians. Christians were to aspire to be mystical eunuchs. As has been seen also, this was because physical castration was associated with chastity. However, certain eunuch qualities can be noted by the hagiographers, belonging to either noteworthy Christian eunuchs or just to incidental ones. In the Passion of Indes and Domna, Indes is the eunuch of the young priestess Domna, and they convert to Christianity together. Notably, his character is described as civilised and gentle (˜MEROND_KA‰ŸSzXION).39 These characteristics are contrasted with the fact that he is of barbarian extraction, but the attributes have associations with eunuchs anyway. The identification of the chamberlains at the court of Constantinople in the Life of Melania the Younger as faithful (PISTOvQ), noted by Boulhol and Cochelin, is an entirely traditional acknowledgement of a valued quality of eunuchs.40 Boulhol and Cochelin also dwell on the image of particular eunuchs, the castrensis Amantius in Mark the 100

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

Deacon’s Life of Porphyry, and the cubicularius Eleutherius who was the subject of a Passion.41 Amantius is depicted as courteous, pious, kind, sensitive, honest and diligent. Featuring in the enumeration of Eleutherius’ virtues are his dogooding, gentleness, kindliness, peacefulness, lack of avariciousness, mildness, lack of anger, just character, blamelessness, honesty, brotherly-love, piety, lack of evilness, lack of greed, and generosity. Boulhol and Cochelin argue that these positive characterisations of eunuchs were a deliberate inversion by the hagiographers of the dominant negative stereotypes of eunuchs at that time. Significant also in pointing out that favourable views of eunuchs could exist in the later Roman (and Byzantine) empires is Georges Sidéris.42 He discusses cases already cited in this chapter, such as Eutherius and Amantius, and identifies others, such as the chamberlains Misael and Theodore who feature in John of Ephesus’ Lives of the Eastern Saints. These two chamberlains are noted for their piety and charity.43 Sidéris also highlights the particularly interesting instances of Callinicus and Narses.44 Callinicus was the grand chamberlain of Justinian I, and was celebrated by Leontius Scholasticus in an epigram, which was originally attached to an icon of the eunuch.45 The epigram remarks on Callinicus’ spiritual beauty as well as his physical beauty. It also imagines the eunuch sowing gentleness (MEILIX‰HN) in the ears of the emperor as he goes to sleep. As for Narses, he was the spatharius of Justin II, and he features in Corippus’ panegyrics marking the accession of the emperor.46 His good character is commented on, and his luminous appearance is emphasised (as is his beauty and height). Corippus also mentions the eunuch attendants in general, and stresses their loyalty to the emperor.47 It is notable that a sceptre which was created for Amantius, the praepositus sacri cubiculi of Anastasius, had verses inscribed upon it which vaunted the eunuch’s loyalty to the emperor.48 Taken together, the work of Boulhol and Cochelin and Sidéris indicates that there existed in the later Roman period a rich seam of positive views of eunuchs. This is found not just in hagiography but in other forms of literature more classical in character. The argument of Boulhol and Cochelin that it was the hagiographers who were rehabilitating the reputation of the eunuch can be questioned.49 Rather, it can be argued that the hagiographers were simply drawing upon extant positive stereotypes, which co-existed with the negative ones. The image of the eunuch in antiquity was already a divided one, as Briant identified in his discussion of Greek sources on Persian eunuchs.50 This co-existence of views is evident, for instance, in Basil of Caesarea’s letter to Simplicia. Although in his tirade against eunuchs he damns their lust for women, he also refers to the fact that castration renders them temperate. Hagiographers can even deploy both types of eunuch in the same text, as Boulhol and Cochelin show.51 The Passion of Indes and Domna features the holy eunuchs Indes and the cleric Agapius, as well as an evil chief eunuch at court who imprisoned Indes and Domna. Although these characters are fictional they still represent diverse thinking about eunuchs. Interestingly, Boulhol and Cochelin indicate a further possible stance towards eunuchs, that of neutrality.52 Authors could mention eunuchs without making an explicit judgement about them. This suggests that any comment which was made, 101

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

negative or positive, was voiced for a particular reason or purpose. A striking contrast, for instance, is provided by the histories of Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius. Ammianus is notorious for his hostile treatment of eunuchs, whereas Procopius seems unfazed by the presence of eunuchs at court and their possible roles in imperial administration. He can refer to such eunuchs without providing any loaded commentary. Jones notes in particular the equitable treatment of Narses, and suggests that prejudice against eunuchs had waned after the fourth century.53 Certainly Procopius’ more favourable view of Narses is shared by Agathias. The latter lauds the eunuch for being dynamic and clever (DRASTˆRIOQKADEIN¢Q), for his courage and heroic achievements (ÐNDREvON KA MEGALOYRG¢N), and asserts that he had nobility of soul.54 Procopius also commended Narses for his dynamism (DRASTˆRIOQ).55 Notably Procopius could praise the eunuch Solomon too, asserting that his rule in Africa was wise and very moderate.56 However, it should not be overlooked that hostility towards eunuchs could still be found subsequent to the fourth century, as well as the fact that Ammianus does not attack eunuchs every time they appear in his narrative. For instance, the chamberlain who carried Valens’ helmet at the battle of Adrianople and who was never seen again after the Roman defeat, and the chamberlains attending on Valentinian I’s deathbed, excite no specific verdict.57 This underlines the fact that Ammianus had a particular agenda which was served by his anti-eunuch observations: the denigration of the regime of Constantius II. One is left with the impression, then, that when it came to eunuchs, authors could select the image they wanted in order to suit their purposes. They could choose between positive and negative images, which co-existed in society, and which could even feature simultaneously in a single text. Both these images were stereotypical, they both constituted topoi. This has certain implications for the theory of Ringrose. The existence of a positive view of eunuchs in Byzantium was hardly unprecedented. To treat negative views of eunuchs in Byzantium as the survival of outdated topoi but positive views of eunuchs in Byzantium as authentic sentiment is a questionable position. Both were equally stereotypical. As mentioned above, Ringrose attaches great importance to the fact that in twelfth-century Byzantium one finds a positive etymology for the word eunuch.58 However this was no invention on the part of the Byzantines, for it already existed in the later Roman empire: it is referred to in the fourth century by Epiphanius of Salamis.59 This emphatically demonstrates that favourable perceptions of eunuchs were nothing new, and that the positive view of eunuchs was a topos itself. It is appropriate at this point to examine more closely Byzantine views of eunuchs, before considering Ringrose’s thesis further.

Byzantine negative views of eunuchs As Ringrose acknowledges, there existed in Byzantium both positive and negative views of eunuchs. Although she considers the hostile depictions of eunuchs as archaic rhetoric, there is no doubt that these were regularly expressed, and with great confidence. They can share the viciousness of the later Roman judgements, in 102

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

some cases exceeding it, and can dwell on gender aspects too. In the ninth century Photios reviled the eunuch John Angourios patrikios and sakellarios in a letter, declaring that the eunuch had increased the degree to which his race was renowned and hated for wickedness.60 He also describes John as an ‘androgyne’. The puzzle of the gender of eunuchs is also commented on in a letter of the diplomat Leo Choirosphaktes dating to the early tenth century, which damns a eunuch who had been on embassy to Baghdad with Leo.61 Reflecting on the condition of the eunuch, Choirosphaktes considers that it is as if he had been born of two women, since he was womanish (UHLYN¿MENOQ). In addition, the diplomat accuses the eunuch of having engaged in sexual improprieties during the embassy, and asserts that he was evil in everything. A satirical song of the tenth century mocks the eunuchs Polyeuktos the patriarch and Basil Lekapenos for having shrivelled penises and large anuses, the latter jibe alluding to anal sex.62 A notorious aphorism recorded in the twelfth-century chronicle of Kedrenos, in the context of the reign of Eirene and the powerful eunuchs who betrayed her, runs as follows: If you have a eunuch, kill him; if you haven’t, buy one and kill him.63 Also from the twelfth century, the romance Aristandros and Kallithea, written by Constantine Manasses, relates that although a viper had bitten a eunuch it was the snake that died, since the eunuch’s blood was more poisonous.64 In his Life of his uncle John the bishop of Heraclea, a eunuch, Nikephoros Gregoras declares that John’s sanctity was all the more remarkable because as a feminised eunuch he was more prey to passions than ordinary men.65 Desire was not eradicated by castration. Byzantine historiographical sources can have much to say about eunuchs, due to their role in politics. These can demonstrate hostility, in the manner of Ammianus Marcellinus. Leo the Deacon, for instance, makes his feelings known about prominent court eunuchs of the tenth century.66 Constantine Gongylios is disparagingly described as an effeminate (literally ‘reared in the shade’) little man from Paphlagonia.67 Joseph Bringas is similarly reviled as a pitiable castrate from the Paphlagonian wastes, in John Tzimiskes’ reaction to the extent of the eunuch’s political power.68 The chronicle of Skylitzes makes several observations on the effeminacy, wickedness and greed of eunuchs. When Bardas Skleros hears that Bardas Phokas has been sent to oppose him by Basil the parakoimomenos, he is depicted as being pleased at the prospect of facing a real man in battle, instead of little castrated men who had been raised in the shade of ladies’ chambers (ÐNDR­RIAKTETMHMqNAUALAMEY¿MENAKASKIATROFË).69 On the administration of Constantine VIII, it is noted that this emperor did not appoint worthy men to civil and military posts, but inebriated servile eunuchs, filled with every disgusting defilement.70 Of these, Spondyles and Niketas the Pisidian are singled out as infamous wicked men. A eunuch chamberlain who distinguished himself when caught up in battle by attacking Saracens and winning back his property is said to have acted not out of military experience, but out of love of money.71 Greed is certainly attributed to John the orphanotrophos, whose regime is presented as a tyranny.72 Basil the parakoimonenos is depicted as being up to his neck in the selling of offices under Constantine VII.73 The bad character of eunuchs also attracts comment in the history of Attaleiates. His coverage of the eunuch ‘satrap’ 103

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

of Bulgaria leads him to reflect on the common faults of eunuchs.74 He emphasises their envy and falseness.75 There also springs to mind an intriguing incident recorded in the history of Bryennios relating to the eunuch John the protovestiarios.76 This eunuch was put in command of troops by the emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates, who relieved Alexios Komnenos of the position. When Alexios handed over his troops to John he then galloped off the field. John imitated this action, which earned him the abuse of the troops. Bryennios reports that they laughed at John, and cried out ‘Klou klou’, which he says was a phrase customarily directed against eunuchs. It was clearly a figure of speech denoting derision.77 John the protovestiarios in general emerges rather badly from Bryennios’ history. He is described initially as glory-loving and inconstant.78 Famously, he had to be saved from the Turks by George Palaiologos, and despite his avowed gratitude he turned against his saviour, and thus is branded by Bryennios as most treacherous (DOLIÑTATOQ).79

Byzantine positive views of eunuchs Despite such strident anti-eunuch sentiment, favourable assessments were voiced too, and sometimes by authors who also pronounced negative verdicts. For instance, Skylitzes can acknowledge the trust that was placed in eunuchs by rulers, the loyalty they displayed, and their value as special agents. Orestes is described as one of the most faithful eunuchs (jNAsNTAT}NPISTOT­TVNE~NOzXVN) of Basil II, a characterisation also applied to Ergodotes (TIQT}NPISTIKVT­TVN), the eunuch of Constantine VIII.80 Such was Ergodotes’ loyalty, or persuasiveness, that he was selected for special errands. Constantine VIII intended to despatch him to Constantine Dalassenos to fetch him to the emperor to become his heir. Later John the orphanotrophos did send Ergodotes to Dalassenos, since he was accomplished in such matters.81 Constantine the Saracen is noted for his faithfulness to Constantine IX Monomachos, and Nikephoros is distinguished for being well-disposed (E[NOIAN TˆREI) towards the same emperor.82 Skylitzes is capable of making more overt positive comments about eunuchs. Peter, a slave of the Phokas family who went on to achieve a prominent military career, is characterised as dynamic (DRASTˆRION) and very skilled in military matters.83 John the orphanotrophos is also noted for his dynamism, and for being capable (PRAKTIK¢QkNURVPOQ®N).84 Sergios, a eunuch of Basil II, is described as an intelligent individual and a skilful speaker (kNDRA FRENˆRHTEKADEIN¢NEÝPEvN).85 Certain accounts of the actions of eunuchs elicit a favourable response even if none is given by Skylitzes himself. The story of the chamberlain who took on Saracens to win back his property is included by the chronicler since it is diverting. The critical interpretation of the eunuch’s motives is found in only one manuscript tradition. Otherwise Skylitzes implies a contrast with the behaviour of the Byzantine soldiers, but it is difficult not to admire the courage of the eunuch. Another eunuch who distinguishes himself in a military venture is John the Philosopher, one of Zoe the Macedonian’s bedchamber personnel.86 He led a night mission against a group of Pechenegs with great success, though Skylitzes just describes this episode without paying John any explicit compliment. It is 104

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

important to appreciate also that Skylitzes can undercut his favourable assessments of eunuchs. Peter possesses his skills despite the fact that he is a eunuch; Orestes may have been faithful, but he had no competence in warfare or administration; Nikephoros is made stratopedarch by Constantine Monomachos not because of his military abilities, but because he was a trusted supporter of the emperor; although John the orphanotrophos is a vibrant political force, he still presides over a tyranny. In spite of these qualifications, it is clear that Skylitzes can allow eunuchs their positive qualities. Notable favourable views of eunuchs were expressed by other authors. An especially memorable case concerns a pair of eunuch paidagogoi (one of whom is named as Leontakios) who feature in the history of Bryennios.87 The eunuchs helped Michael Doukas (one of the grandsons of the Caesar John Doukas) escape from the fortress in which he was being held as a hostage by the Norman mercenary Roussel de Bailleul. This involved fleeing at night and making the journey to Nicomedia. Bryennios describes the plan as intelligent and daring (SYNETžNlMAKATOLMHR‘N) and ascribes high intelligence (NOYNEXqSTATOQ) to Leontakios. The other eunuch paidogogos was prevented from absconding (as was Michael’s brother John), and is praised for the fortitude with which he bore the subsequent tortures. Bryennios comments that although his body was feeble his soul was noble. Another interesting case is the treatment of Theodore Krateros in the chronicle of Theophanes Continuatus. Theodore was a eunuch at the court of Theophilos, and merits attention due to intriguing events in the hippodrome in Constantinople.88 Theodore dared to mock the martial skills of an Arab who was putting on a display there, while deploying two spears on horseback. Theodore’s criticism of this show earned him a rebuke from the emperor, who called him effeminate and unmanly (UHLYDR‰A KA kNANDRE). However, the eunuch then took the Arab on with one spear and unseated him, and was richly rewarded by Theophilos. The emphasis of this story is on the piety of Theodore, rather than on any latent military skill he had, for he put his trust in God that he would succeed. Theodore was better known, of course, as one of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion. Although Leo the Deacon shows hostility to Joseph Bringas (or at least cites the negative views of Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes) he can praise Basil Lekapenos for being dynamic (DRASTˆRIOQ) and shrewd (ÐGX‰NOYQ), qualities he also praises Nikephoros Phokas for.89 In contrast to Leo the Deacon, the chronicle of Theophanes Continuatus is known for its praise of the eunuch Joseph Bringas.90 He characterises Joseph as shrewd (PYKN¢Q), upright (ÎRU¢Q), faithful (PIST¢Q), swifter than an eagle in opposing political injustices, pious, just, even-handed, in short a paragon.91 He is also described as having a kind (XRHST¢Q), upright and vigilant mind, and as being earnest (SPOYDAvOQ) and alert (UERM¢Q).92 Just as Joseph Bringas divided opinion, so did Nikephoritzes.93 A fervent admirer was Kekaumenos, who praises him as a man excellent in all things, most capable, experienced in military and political affairs, magnanimous, very quickwitted, and adept at thinking and speaking.94 There is however a qualification in Kekaumenos’ praise, for he observes that Nikephoritzes had these qualities despite being a eunuch. While Attaleiates damned him, other commentators, like 105

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

Bryennios, could present a more conflicted picture of the eunuch, both praising and criticising him. Bryennios asserts that Nikephoritzes was a man who was able (NTREXË) and dynamic (DRASTˆRION), intelligent and experienced in affairs, but also cunning (BAUYGNÑMONA) and capable of throwing affairs into confusion.95 Although Leo the Deacon can praise Basil Lekapenos, he can also acknowledge his greed.96 Another powerful court eunuch who had a mixed reputation was John the orphanotrophos, as has been seen in Skylitzes’ chronicle. Psellos famously dwells on the character of this eunuch, analysing his good and bad qualities.97 His intelligence, industry, administrative experience (he was especially adept in financial matters), vigilance and dedication to his brother the emperor Michael are all praised. He is upbraided for his domineering character, his dissimulation, and especially his greed and drinking. Psellos also attempts to establish more grey areas. He asserts that John was not malicious, but could be intimidating and inspire fear. Psellos is often complimented on his realistic portrayals of individuals of his time, but one can still recognise here elements of the stereotypical good and bad eunuch. Divergent images of eunuchs also existed in Byzantine romances. In addition to the hostile case detailed above, there are met eunuchs who are trusted and loyal agents, and expert mediators.98 As seen in the previous chapter, Byzantine eunuchs could also garner praise in the sphere of religion.99 They could become saints. They could be recognised for their lack of dangerous passions, their natural continence. Attaleiates declared that it was this aspect of eunuchs which made him desire them for the monastery in his house in Constantinople. In the context of Christianity an interesting and much-discussed aspect of the identity of eunuchs in Byzantium is the association that could be made between them and angels.100 In dreams and visions angels were often mistaken for eunuchs of the earthly court. This confusion is encountered regularly in Byzantine thought. An example is found in Leontios of Neapolis’ Life of John the Almsgiver, patriarch of Alexandria, written in the seventh century.101 On a journey to Constantinople to visit the emperor, John sees a vision of what he takes to be a eunuch, summoning him to the King of Kings. He then realises that this is an angel calling him to God. A later dramatic instance is the dream of Bardas from the tenth-century Life of Ignatios the Younger.102 In this dream Bardas sees his own divinely sanctioned death. He went to Hagia Sophia with his nephew the emperor Michael III, and at all the windows of the church archangels were looking in. When the two men came to the pulpit two chamberlains appeared and dragged away the emperor, while Bardas was dragged away by two more. He then saw St Peter seated upon the patriarchal throne, flanked by two praipositoi. Implored by Ignatios, Peter ordered that Bardas be led away and cut to pieces. It is clear that the individuals Bardas identifies as eunuchs (the chamberlains and praipositoi) were in fact angels, agents of divine will. Famous cases of the mistaking of angels for eunuchs are found in the Narratio de Sancta Sophia, a legendary account of the building of Hagia Sophia, and the Vision of the Monk Kosmas, a description of the ex-chamberlain’s visionary visit to heaven.103 The common confusion is given a twist in the twelfth-century satire Timarion, for when the hero sees the emperor Theophilos in the underworld he assumes the 106

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

white-clad beardless radiant figure accompanying him is a eunuch but is told that it is the emperor’s guardian angel: here the earthly ruler is attended by a divine agent.104 On the face of it, the strength of the topos lies in the fact that angels and eunuchs fulfilled similar roles at the celestial and earthly courts respectively. They were the ever-present guardians of their master, and they were his special agents.105 But there are further parallels between angels and eunuchs. Angels could appear as beardless males, and were a distinctive type of being, reflected in their depiction in Byzantine art, such as the ninth-century mosaic of Gabriel in Hagia Sophia (Plate 4).106 Thus they had clear physical similarities to eunuchs. A tenthcentury Byzantine book on dream interpretation, the so-called Oneirocriticon of Achmet, makes explicit that eunuchs and angels were associated because of their appearance, but also because of their character. It asserts that if one dreams of a graceful and tall (E~EIDË E~ˆLIKION) eunuch, the eunuch should be considered an angel, on account of the fact that a eunuch is pure (KAUAR¢N), angel-like (ÐGGELOPREP_Q), and not given to fleshly desires.107 Literary and visual images of angels can emphasise their luminous appearance and clothing, features also attributed to eunuchs.108 This luminosity had connotations of divinity, both for angels and for eunuchs. As Sidéris notes, the eunuch Narses was described in this way by Corippus, so the concept is already found in the later Roman empire.109 Such is the strength of the parallel between angels and eunuchs that one begins to wonder which being influenced the perception of the other. It is natural to assume that angels were the model for eunuchs, but perhaps the use of court eunuchs in the Roman empire had an influence upon the perception of angels.110 Certainly there were developments in the depiction of angels in the later Roman and early Byzantine periods, as Peers demonstrates.111 A further interesting aspect of the association of eunuchs and angels in a Byzantine context has been indicated by Mango. Noting the existence of shrines in Asia Minor dedicated to the archangel Michael in the guise of a wonderworker, he suggests that Michael had taken over holy sites dedicated to Attis, the castrated consort of the goddess Cybele.112 The fact that the connection between castrated males and angels has been made in other Christian societies suggests that the association had a certain inevitability. For instance, the role of angels in mystical castration has already been met. The Skoptsy believed that self-castration transformed mortal beings into angels.113 Amongst the favourite subjects for icons owned by the Skoptsy was the archangel Michael.114 The distinctive singing voice possessed by the castrati added another dimension to the parallel, given the association of angels with choirs.115 The castrati were said to have angelic voices, and the young castrati were known as ‘puttini castrati’, castrated little angels.116 Moreschi was hailed as ‘the angel of Rome’, an acclamation issued after his triumphant performance in the role of the Seraph in Beethoven’s Christus am Ölberge.117 The main point to bear in mind, however, is that the association of eunuchs and angels provided the former with a positive aspect to their identity.

107

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

The significance of Theophylact of Ochrid’s In Defence of Eunuchs Thus, as Ringrose indicates, there were both positive and negative Byzantine views of eunuchs. For her, however, the positive position was normative. This stance leans heavily on Theophylact of Ochrid’s In Defence of Eunuchs. But how much significance can one attach to this text? It is necessary to explore it further. On the face of it, the treatise appears to be a dramatic departure from what one expects to hear about eunuchs. It presents an argument deliberately in favour of eunuchs. In particular it suggests that eunuchs, or pre-pubertal ones at any rate, are in general pure. Castration is a means to thwart the passions. Such views, however, are hardly revolutionary, or unique to Byzantium. As has been seen, these ideas were of ancient standing. Further, the argument that Theophylact is presenting the standard Byzantine perception of eunuchs can be challenged. Theophylact asserts that he wrote the piece to comfort his brother, a eunuch, who was fed up with the hostility eunuchs had to face in Byzantine society. If there had been a general shift to a positive perception of eunuchs in Byzantium in the middle period, it is highly unlikely that Theophylact would have had to produce the text. Further, the individuality of the text has been emphasised by Mullett: Theophylact was writing for his brother, not for a general audience.118 The critic of eunuchs he conjures up may not be just a peddler of outmoded ideas, though whether Theophylact allows him a fair crack of the whip is a pertinent question.119 The critic is allowed in particular to comment on the illegality of castration, and the passions to which eunuchs are subject. He asserts that eunuchs who work in the women’s quarters in the palace will become feminised, due to spending so much time with females.120 He also notes the debauchery of some eunuchs. More significant, perhaps, are the negative perceptions of eunuchs which their defender lets slip. Rather than reiterating the critic’s view that eunuchs become feminised through contact with women, he voices the more traditional view that eunuchs are indeed inherently feminised.121 In addition, he shows familiarity with a hostile orientalist vision of eunuchs. He declares that this does not apply to Byzantine eunuchs, only to those elsewhere, such as eunuchs among the Persians or Arabs.122 This suggests acceptance of a negative view of eunuchs. His opposition to selfcastration of young men for sexual gratification is entirely customary too.123 What is intriguing about Theophylact’s In Defence of Eunuchs is that it articulates the fact that Byzantines did ignore rulings and legislation against castration, asserting that they were irrelevant. Byzantine practice is acknowledged. Further, Theophylact’s stress on judging people as individuals rather than on what group they belong to seems very modern. He is able to acknowledge that there were good and bad eunuchs, just as, for instance, there were good and bad men. An additional interesting aspect of the text is that it has an extra objective, one that may have had greater significance for Theophylact. It is no mere chance that the critic of eunuchs is a monk, for the treatise is concerned to challenge ascetics, as Mullett has elaborated.124 Like eunuchs, ascetics have an altered physical state. Unlike eunuchs, ascetics cannot guarantee purity. At the same time, the defender 108

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

argues, eunuchs have to choose to attain purity.125 It is not accomplished without a struggle, and not all eunuchs did achieve it. Thus ascetics cannot accuse them of being pure by default. These considerations suggest that one has to be very careful in estimating the significance of Theophylact’s In Defence of Eunuchs. It is not proof of an altered perception of eunuchs prevalent in Byzantium. If anything, it suggests that hostile attitudes remained current and real. Ringrose appears to be on firmer ground when she appeals to Theophylact’s poem on the wicked eunuch, for he asserts that this eunuch was an exception, and that purity was a distinctive characteristic of eunuchs. Perhaps, however, Theophylact takes this position in the poem in order to denigrate the debauched eunuch further. The rarity of his sin makes it the more shocking. I would suggest that Theophylact made a deliberate decision to select ideas which facilitated his aims. There can be no doubt that both positive and negative views of eunuchs continued to co-exist in Byzantium, but to assert that the former were the true expression of Byzantine attitudes and that the latter were archaic stereotypes is questionable. Both stances deployed ancient stereotypes. I would argue, rather, that in Byzantium opinion on eunuchs was diverse rather than homogeneous. Multiple identities co-existed. Byzantines had a choice in how to understand eunuchs. This could be positive, negative or neutral, and all were legitimate. It is clear that authors could select the model which best suited their purposes. This is especially evident where authors utilised both hostile and favourable characterisations of eunuchs. Theophylact can emphasise the positive for his own ends, but draws on the negative too. Attaleiates voiced sharply contrasting views. In his History he can make specific and general assaults on eunuchs, but in the Diataxis for his monastery he opines that eunuchs possess apatheia. In the chronicle of Theophanes Continuatus, Theodre Krateros is rebuked as unmasculine, but then confounds this categorisation. Perhaps, to an extent, this enabled the assessment of eunuchs as individuals, the path urged by Theophylact in his In Defence of Eunuchs. Using ancient stereotypes, Byzantines were able to judge specific eunuchs as good or bad characters, or as being mixed characters. The Byzantine position on eunuchs was more complex than Ringrose suggests, albeit frustratingly paradoxical. That, however, was a consequence of the paradoxical nature of eunuchs.

A third gender? An element of Ringrose’s thesis that a positive identity for eunuchs emerged as the norm in Byzantium, is that this positive identity encompassed the view of eunuchs as a third gender. Her argument stresses the role of acculturation in the formation of identity.126 Eunuchs are visualised being trained at court to behave in a distinctive manner. Further, Ringrose asserts that the difference of eunuchs was emphasised by their wearing of dress peculiar to them. These propositions also require examination. It is notorious that there is virtually no evidence for the training of eunuchs at the Byzantine court, as Ringrose acknowledges. There are allusions to the education 109

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

of eunuchs before or after they were sent to Constantinople, such as in relation to Constantine the Paphlagonian or Nikephoros of Miletos, but nothing that indicates intensive induction in court tasks and behaviour. This is not to say that it did not occur. Indeed one would imagine that such training must have occurred. It is certainly attested in other royal or imperial powers that made use of court eunuchs, especially the Ottoman empire.127 Toledano discusses the Ottoman school for eunuchs, ‘where they began their career at the palace’.128 Here the eunuchs were ‘introduced to high Court culture and Palace etiquette’, as well as instructed in more practical matters. On the issue of clothing there is firmer ground. In addition to white or bright clothing being associated with eunuchs, there is information in the Kletorologion of Philotheos relating to the dress worn by holders of specific eunuch titles.129 This is because items of clothing could constitute the insignia of a particular title, or at least part of the insignia. For instance, Philotheos notes that the insignia of the nipsistarios was a linen kamision, a kind of outer garment, on which was attached a representation of a basin.130 He also describes clothing of the koubikoularios, the primikerios, the eunuch protospatharios and the eunuch patrikios.131 What is especially interesting is that Philotheos indicates that in the instances when bearded men could have titles in common with eunuchs, that is in the case of the titles of protospatharios and patrikios, the costume could distinguish them. The insignia of the bearded protospatharios was a golden collar decorated with precious stones, while the eunuch protospatharios’ collar was also decorated with pearls.132 Since the insignia of a eunuch patrikios was similar to that of a eunuch protospatharios, his costume would have been distinctive too. A comparative approach is rewarding here again, as it is clear that other cultures also operated a system whereby dress was a means of distinguishing court eunuchs, the Chinese and Ottoman cases being particularly well known (Plates 9 and 13).133 It is likely then that court eunuchs did undergo education and training, and it is more certain that they wore distinctive clothes. Whether these resulted in, or contributed to, the establishment of a third gender for eunuchs is another matter. What exactly eunuchs were taught must remain obscure, but even if they were acculturated to particular modes of behaviour this does not necessarily signify that they constituted an alternative gender. As for clothing, it was not just used as a signifier of eunuchs. Indeed, one might imagine that eunuchs were more obvious from their physical appearance than from what they were wearing anyway. Dress, in particular of those who bore titles and held office in the imperial administrative system, was a crucial indication of status in Byzantium, and also in other cultures throughout history.134 The Byzantines were deeply preoccupied with status. Philotheos is not concerned with clothing generally, but with clothing as insignia. Further, he does not just describe the apparel appropriate to eunuch titles but can also describe the dress worn by bearded title holders.135 The language of dress was a shared system. One only has to think of the individual dress of the Byzantine emperor to appreciate this fact. Status was key rather than gender: eunuchs were not being singled out. The eunuch patrikioi and protospatharioi may have been distinguished from their bearded counterparts by items of dress, but they were technically holding different titles. In the case of the eunuch patrikioi it is 110

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

important to recognise that they had preeminence over the bearded patrikioi in the ranking system, at least at the time when Philotheos wrote.136 Therefore it can be questioned whether the issues of training and dress support Ringrose’s view that eunuchs constituted a third gender in Byzantium. This is not to say, however, that eunuchs did not constitute a third gender in Byzantium. The view that eunuchs were a third type of being was expressed in the later Roman period, and it is clear that the Byzantines could also perceive them in this way. An example is found, for instance, in Leo VI’s law banning eunuchs from getting married. He refers to eunuchs as some strange sex (JqNON TI GqNOQ).137 Indeed, given the distinctive nature of the eunuch it would be surprising if the Byzantines did not regard them in such a light. The parallel between eunuchs and angels reinforces the sense that they were considered different. The fact that eunuchs in other societies can be understood to form a third gender group, such as the hijras, adds to the sense that this is a natural conclusion.138 However, Ringrose herself points to a more complex position. Although she argues that eunuchs in Byzantium can be regarded as a third gender, the eunuchs she has in mind are really a distinct group, the court eunuchs. What then of other eunuchs in Byzantine society? What gender do eunuchs in other roles constitute? One thinks especially of those who occupied religious positions, the monks and clergymen. Regarding the religious in general, Ringrose raises the possibility that there were in fact more than three genders in Byzantine society, that multiple gender identities existed. Although she does not pursue this idea, it is one that requires study before one can pronounce on the gender status of eunuchs in Byzantium. I would suggest in the meantime that as with the co-existence of positive and negative views of eunuchs, perhaps the gender categorisation of eunuchs was fluid according to the wishes of the commentator. Certainly a range of possibilities existed, as has been seen in this book. As well as being acknowledged as other, eunuchs could be considered as masculine or feminine.

Eunuch self-identity? This chapter has so far been concerned with how eunuchs were perceived by noneunuchs. It is natural to wonder, however, what eunuchs thought of themselves. Here one is confronted by a general problem referred to earlier in this book, the lack of eunuch voices.139 There are exceptions to this obstacle, especially in modern times, such as the memoirs of the castrato Balatri and the published emails of the hijra Mona Ahmed.140 Despite the rarity of such voices, it is clear from modern cases that eunuchs can be concerned with self-identity. Nanda notes the eagerness of some hijras to provide an account of themselves, and Engelstein testifies to the interest of the Skoptsy in this matter too, seen for instance in their producing photographic images of themselves. The hijras and the Skoptsy are very distinctive groups, and may not be typical of eunuchs in general, but it is valid to ask whether Byzantine eunuchs furnish any cases of self-presentation, In terms of textual evidence the picture looks blank. As far as is known, none of the famous writers of Byzantium was a eunuch. The notorious possible exception 111

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

is Symeon the New Theologian, but if he was a eunuch he does not seem to have made it obvious.141 Eunuchs are the subjects of literary sources rather than their creators. Eunuchs are also the subjects of visual sources. The most famous extant image of a Byzantine eunuch is probably the mosaic of Ignatios the Younger on the north tympanum in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Plate 5).142 However, not all visual depictions of eunuchs have survived. It is known that images of chamberlains existed too. The epigram on Justinian I’s chamberlain Callinicus was attached to a depiction of the eunuch, whilst portraits of Arcadius’ praepositus sacri cubiculi Eutropius were ordered to be destroyed on his fall from power in 399.143 The eighth-century text the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chonikai refers to a statue of the fourth-century praepositus Hilarion and a statue of a eunuch identified as Plato a fifth-century cubicularius.144 Presumably such images were created to celebrate the status attained by eunuchs in late Roman or Byzantine society, in the religious or political spheres.145 This scenario makes one think immediately of the many portraits produced of famous castrati, testimony to their recognition in society.146 For instance, Tenducci, who visited Britain and Ireland in the second half of the eighteenth century, was immortalised by Thomas Gainsborough.147 The castrato Venanzio Rauzzini (1746–1810), for whom Mozart composed Exsultate, Jubilate, and who settled in Bath in 1787 and is buried in Bath Abbey, was the subject of several portraits, such as one of the castrato with his dog Turk by Joseph Hutchison (Plate 12).148 The portraits of the most famous castrato of them all, Farinelli, have received particular attention.149 Especially striking is the painting of Farinelli by Jacopo Amigoni, dated c. 1750–1752, in which the castrato is depicted with a group which includes the artist himself and the librettist Pietro Metastasio, his good friend (Plate 11). Farinelli is the central figure in the group, and bears the Order of Calatrava, having been knighted in 1750 by Ferdinand VI the king of Spain. Such an image begs the question of how much say Farinelli had in depictions of himself. One thinks again of the interest of the Skoptsy in having themselves photographed. Opportunities for self-presentation could exist. Interestingly, there are cases of visual images of eunuchs in Byzantium where an element of self-fashioning is a possibility. The major instance is that of the donor frontispiece of the tenth-century Leo Bible, depicting the eunuch Leo proffering his Bible to the Theotokos, and ultimately to Christ (Plate 14).150 Leo’s smooth face is suggestive of the fact that he is a eunuch, which finds support from the inscriptions accompanying the image which describe the scene. These identify him as a praipositos and sakellarios. His clothing is carefully depicted. He wears a white tunic (chiton) with gold bands at the wrist and hem decorated with designs in red. Over this tunic he wears a red cloak (chlamys) with golden palmette decoration on the chest and a golden border ornamented with a red shelllike design. He is shod with black shoes. Arrestingly, the visual account of his dress broadly matches the textual account given by Philotheos for the costume of a eunuch patrikios, which Leo was.151 In addition, a further inscription runs round the border of the scene, explaining that the reason for Leo’s donation of the Bible was anticipation of remission for his sins. Notably, the statement is written in the first person singular, so a textual eunuch voice can exist. Indeed the combination 112

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

of text and image presents a strong impression of the eunuch and his concerns. He asserts his social status and his piety. The production of the manuscript as a whole also testifies to these aspects of Leo, as well as his wealth and cultural aspirations. This was a major lavish manuscript, and each book of the Bible had a frontispiece illustration with a border inscription in verse which served as a commentary on the image. These commentaries are attributed to Leo himself. Also worthy of observation is that the donor frontispiece had as a companion an image which sheds light on the destination of the manuscript and Leo’s social connections (Plate 15). St Nicholas is shown standing with two prostrate figures at his feet on either side. Again inscriptions are crucial in explaining the scene. The figure on Nicholas’ left is revealed to be Constantine the protospatharios, the brother of Leo and the founder of a monastery of St Nicholas. The other figure is Makar, the abbot of the monastery to which Leo gifted his Bible. The fact that Leo had a non-eunuch brother is particularly interesting, revealing the lack of social isolation of some Byzantine eunuchs.152 Further, conveying the social status of the brother is clearly a concern. The inscription reveals his title, as does the image which depicts the sword of the protospatharios protruding from beneath his cloak. Overall, one is left with the impression that Leo shared the values and concerns of the Byzantine social elite; only his physical difference marks him out. A further case worth exploring is that of one of the four miniatures attached to an eleventh-century manuscript of the homilies of John Chrysostom (Coislin 79), produced as a gift for an emperor.153 The four miniatures show: the emperor with the empress Maria of Alania; the emperor with courtiers (Plate 6); the emperor flanked by John Chrysostom and the archangel Michael (Plate 7); and the emperor with the monk Sabas (Plate 8). These miniatures have a rather complex history. It seems that the manuscript was originally produced for the emperor Michael VII Doukas, at which time the first three miniatures became an integral part of the artefact. However, the manuscript was then reworked for the emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates, with the image of the emperor and the monk Sabas added at this stage. This led to the alteration of the images of the emperor, Doukas becoming Botaneiates. These details need not detain us. What is of interest for this book is that, as Dumitrescu has it, the manuscript is ‘une affaire d’eunuques’.154 In addition to the original patron perhaps being the eunuch John of Side, Dumitrescu argues that three of the four miniatures contain depictions of eunuchs. In the image of the emperor with four courtiers, the most privileged functionary, standing at the emperor’s right hand, can be identified as a eunuch. He is beardless, and he is described in an inscription as a protoproedros and protovestiarios.155 His dress also marks him out from the other courtiers. The monk Sabas is depicted smoothfaced too, so he could be understood to be a eunuch as well.156 The image that is of most concern from the point of view of eunuchs’ self-identity is that of the emperor flanked by John Chrysostom on his right and the archangel Michael on his left. Chrysostom is presenting his homilies to the emperor. There is, however, another individual in the scene. Prostrate at the emperor’s feet, on his left, is the small figure of a man. From his dress he appears to be a monk. He also seems to be beardless, and thus can be considered a eunuch. The inscription 113

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

accompanying this image indicates that he was the ‘grapheus’ of the manuscript, typically understood as meaning he was the painter of the images, though the term could mean ‘scribe’ too. In the inscription the archangel intercedes for the grapheus, requesting together with Chrysostom that the emperor show him favour and support. The relationship between the angel and the grapheus is very much emphasised by the image. Not only does the former speak on behalf of the latter, he gestures down towards him, for they are both positioned on the emperor’s left. The fact that the grapheus is on the left in the first place seems significant, for it was more usual for suppliants to be on the right hand of powerful individuals, in the position of greater honour.157 It appears that the grapheus was deliberately placed on the left to strengthen his association with the angel. If the grapheus was indeed a eunuch, the choice of an angel as his main intercessor has particular significance, for, as Dumitrescu remarks, angels were in some sense the patrons of eunuchs.158 As has been seen in this chapter already, a strong parallel was certainly drawn between eunuchs and angels in Byzantine society. I would suggest that the grapheus had harnessed this parallel to his own advantage. (The attachment of the Skoptsy to images of the archangel Michael perhaps reveals a similar strategy.) Despite the modest scale of the visual representation of himself, the grapheus had enough potency to present the archangel Michael speaking on his behalf. Unlike the depiction of Leo the praipositos and sakellarios the image of the grapheus makes a virtue of his queer physique. This message could be appreciated by Byzantine society in general. In the light of this case, it is perhaps significant that the Limburg reliquary, an artefact associated predominantly with Basil Lekapenos, was adorned with images of angels.159 Pentcheva asserts that ‘Basil saw himself in this celestial angelic guard’.160 Another artefact which is relevant to the issue of Byzantine eunuchs fashioning their own image is one that has only received attention recently. This is a gold and enamel pendant, dated to the twelfth century, and produced for Constantine the proedros, probably a eunuch.161 The pendant would have been worn around the neck of the wearer. When the doors of the pendant are opened a triptych is created, the insides of the doors now forming the flanking wings. In the central panel there is depicted a Deesis: Christ enthroned being petitioned on his right by the Theotokos and on his left by John the Baptist. In addition, half-figures of the archangels Michael and Gabriel are shown in the top corners, Michael on Christ’s right and Gabriel on his left. Also on Christ’s left, at his feet, is shown another figure, the kneeling Constantine, who clasps Christ’s left foot in his right hand. On the wings of the triptych are portrayed the twelve apostles, six on each wing, in horizontal pairs. Constantine the proedros is identified by inscriptions, on the loop at the top of the pendant (‘Lord help your servant Constantine proedros’) and beneath the main scene (‘O Saviour save me your servant the proedros/Your Mother beseeches you as well as your friends together with the angels’). Since Constantine is shown beardless it is likely that he was a eunuch.162 As with the images of court eunuchs already discussed, it is clear that care has been taken in the depiction of Constantine’s dress. In particular he is shown wearing a cloak (chlamys) with a decorative panel (tablion), and also a turban.163 Once again a 114

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

eunuch patron displays a keenness to demonstrate his social status and proximity to powerful holy figures. As in the image including the grapheus in the Coislin 79, there is a preoccupation with angels, who have been added to a traditional Deesis scene. And just like the grapheus, Constantine has located himself on Christ’s left, though perhaps in this case this was for aesthetic reasons.164 Possibilities for the accessing of the self-identity of Byzantine eunuchs therefore exist.165 It should be appreciated too that this is not just confined to textual or visual self-representation, but can be revealed by recorded actions also. As has been seen, eunuchs could embrace the role of patron, be it of monasteries or manuscripts. This indicates that they shared the values of their society, and also shared in its mechanisms for self-promotion.

Non-Byzantine views of eunuchs in Byzantium A final aspect of the images and identities of eunuchs in Byzantium worth exploring is how non-Byzantines responded to Byzantine eunuchs. This raises in turn the question of how Byzantium itself was perceived by other cultures. In this section I will however concentrate mainly on the reactions of western Christians.166 This is because western Christendom was less familiar with the eunuch, and responses are more likely to be forthcoming. (They may also reflect something of the reaction of modern day westerners.) Although castration was not unknown to occur in the western kingdoms, the institution of the court eunuch had died out (although it was embraced by the Normans in Sicily). It is true, however, that Byzantine eunuchs occasionally ventured to the west. In the mid-760s the eunuch Synesios was one of the envoys sent on an embassy to the Franks, which discussed the marriage of Leo, the son of Constantine V, to Gisela, the daughter of Pepin, as well as the issue of icons.167 Later in the eighth century the empress Eirene despatched the eunuch Elissaios to the west to train Charlemagne’s daughter Rotrud, who was engaged to Eirene’s son Constantine VI.168 Similarly, in the tenth century, in the time of Otto I, Byzantine eunuchs came to the west to instruct his niece Hadwig, who was betrothed to Romanos the son of Constantine VII.169 Eunuchs could serve as ambassadors to the west, as in the case of Solomon in the tenth century.170 In addition, Byzantines who came to live in the west could bring eunuchs with them, such as Maria Argyropoula who married the son of the Doge of Venice in the eleventh century, and lived in Venice.171 Despite these instances of eunuchs in the west, it must be the case that Muslims were more au fait with the eunuch, since eunuchs were used by the Islamic powers. However, the subject of eunuchs in the Byzantine empire could still draw comment from Muslims. The differences of Byzantine and Islamic practice were particularly noted, as has been seen in previous chapters. The fact that Byzantines castrated their own children was a source of wonder to Muslims like Masudi, for just like the Romans, Muslims were appalled by the castration of ‘natives’ (that is Muslims in the case of Islam). They depended on a supply of non-Muslim eunuchs, as the Romans had relied on the importation of foreign eunuchs. A fascinating element of Islamic thought about Byzantium is that Muslims could be of the opinion that the Byzantines had 115

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

in fact been responsible for inventing castration.172 This speaks volumes about the extent to which eunuchs were associated with the Byzantine empire. The presence of eunuchs in Byzantium could also attract comment from Christian neighbours. According to the historian George Pachymeres, when Stefan Uroš I of Serbia (1243–1276) saw the imperial train at the time of the Byzantine visit about the prospective betrothal of Anna Palaiologina (daughter of Michael VIII) to Stefan’s son Milutin, he expressed alarm at the strange lifestyle of the Byzantines; his reaction was particularly inspired by the presence of eunuchs in the train.173 The union was not pursued. Turning to the views of Latin Christians, there is one commentator who virtually nominates himself for consideration. This is, of course, Liudprand of Cremona, who wrote about two visits he made to the court in Constantinople as an envoy in the tenth century.174 Of these two visits the more notorious is his embassy in 968 to Nikephoros II Phokas, to whom he had been sent by the German emperor Otto I to negotiate a dynastic marriage. The experience was not a good one according to Liudprand, who wrote an account of it which is deeply hostile to Byzantium, the Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana.175 Interestingly, Liudprand’s negative depiction of Byzantium extends to the subject of its eunuchs, and makes heavy play of the issue of gender. He rails against the fact that Nikephoros had sent a fleet under the command of a eunuch against Otto.176 He interprets this as a deliberate insult, since the eunuch was not a real man, but only a sort of man (hominem quandam) as he had ceased to be male but was not female. This view of eunuchs is also expressed in relation to another eunuch general, who had been captured by the Saracens in Sicily three years previously.177 He describes the eunuch as being of neither gender (qui neutrius erat generis), and pointedly notes that the Saracens thought it beneath them to kill him, even though they killed the other captive general, Manuel.178 Gender comes to the fore also in Liudprand’s rant following the confiscation of purple clothing he had bought in Constantinople to take to the west.179 This deprivation had been effected by the eunuch Christopher the patrikios and three others, and Liudprand exclaims: How disgraceful, how insulting it is, that these soft, effeminate, long-sleeved, hooded, veiled, lying, neutral-gendered, idle creatures should go clad in purple, while you heroes, strong men, skilled in war, full of faith and love, submissive to God, full of virtues, may not! It is not just court eunuchs which attract Liudprand’s ire; he is also aggravated by the fact that eunuchs could fill religious posts in Byzantium. This opinion is prompted by his encounter with the bishop of Leukas, who was a eunuch.180 Liudprand declares that it is against canon law for eunuchs to become bishops.181 In the De Legatione, then, Liudprand voices traditional hostile views of eunuchs, focusing on their gender identity and inappropriateness in certain roles.182 However, it is possible to understand that his target is not so much eunuchs themselves as Byzantium, or at least Byzantium under Nikephoros II Phokas. This impression is supported by a consideration of Liudprand’s rather different reaction 116

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

to eunuchs and Byzantium in his account of a previous visit to Constantinople in 949–950 on behalf of Berengar of Lombardy, when Constantine VII was ruling. This is included in his Antapodosis, written before the De Legatione. His mentions of court eunuchs draw no negative comment, but suggest rather that his responses to Byzantium were awe and pleasure. He reports that a eunuch had been one of the guardians of the young Constantine VII.183 He records that he met in Venice the Byzantine eunuch Solomon, an ambassador, and travelled with him to Constantinople.184 He describes how he was escorted into the presence of the emperor supported by two eunuchs.185 Most telling is the fact that Liudprand deliberately played to the Byzantine love of eunuchs: amongst the gifts he had brought Constantine VII were four young eunuchs, identified as carzimasians and distinguished by being penisless.186 Liudprand has great satisfaction in asserting that of the gifts he brought, the eunuchs were ‘more precious to the emperor than anything’. In the Antapodosis, Liudprand’s treatment of eunuchs contrasts with that in the De Legatione, and conveys his intimacy with Byzantium and his acceptance by the court. Different desires and altering circumstances predicate how he depicts eunuchs, just as was the case for the Byzantines themselves. An individual author could express conflicting opinions according to what suited their purposes. Images of Byzantium itself could fluctuate in western literature. Beyond the famous views of Liudprand, there are other western reactions to Byzantine eunuchs worthy of comment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, eunuchs can feature in the accounts written by crusaders who visited Constantinople.187 In his Deeds of the Franks on their Pilgrimage to Jerusalem Fulcher of Chartres, a cleric on the First Crusade, provides a glowing image of the imperial city, which he witnessed in 1097. The city is described in terms of wonder and bounty, and includes the observation that about 20,000 eunuchs are kept there.188 Fulcher considers eunuchs a distinguishing feature of Byzantine society, one which emphasises the amazing nature of Constantinople and its wealth. His treatment is certainly orientalist, but the tone is not hostile. Indeed Fulcher is noted for his largely positive treatment of Byzantium and the Byzantines. This contrasts sharply with Odo of Deuil’s presentation of the Byzantines in his account of the Second Crusade, since part of the purpose of this chaplain of the French king Louis VII was to provide a warning about the Greeks and a record of their evil deeds. The Byzantines are described as flatterers, deceivers and feminised beings. One might expect Odo to harness the negative rhetoric about eunuchs to aid his purpose, but his treatment of them is rather more surprising. He recalls how after the French arrived at Constantinople in 1147 the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos provided them with a group of clergy to celebrate the feast of St Denis. The singing of this group delighted the French, for it included the distinctive voice of eunuchs.189 Despite this appreciation of the singers, a hostile message still emerges. The kindness of Manuel hid his true (hostile) feelings for the French, and his treacherous nature is emphasised. So, in western eyes eunuchs could be an essential signifier of Byzantium, and one that did not necessarily attract hostile comment. Byzantine eunuchs could impress westerners, and contribute to an orientalist vision of Byzantium which 117

I M AGES AND I DENTI TI ES O F E U N U C H S

was not overtly negative. On the other hand, eunuchs could provide an easy target for western criticism of the Byzantine empire, and their perceived effeminacy could be a quality attributed to Byzantine men as a whole.190 All depended on the aims of the commentators.

Conclusion A consideration of the images and identities of Byzantine eunuchs indicates that there was fluidity rather than a confining straitjacket in thinking. Eunuchs could be depicted between the poles of negativity and positivity, both of which drew on ancient topoi. There also remained the option of neutrality, indicating that authors selected images that suited their purposes. The range of possibilities for the categorisation of eunuchs allowed for assessments of individual eunuchs within this framework. Theophylact’s urging of a case by case approach thus had some viability in Byzantium. It seems that there was also scope for self-presentation, the creation of one’s own identity, though this was based on the societal norms. As for eunuchs being considered a third gender, it seems that this was a possibility, but not the only one.

118

8 THE TWILIGHT OF THE BYZANTINE EU NUCH

Introduction It is a truism amongst Byzantinists that from the twelfth century onwards the heyday of powerful court eunuchs had passed, and that eunuchs were no longer as prominent as they had once been in Byzantine society. The figure of Nikephoritzes is usually held to be the last example of the politically significant eunuchs who characterised the imperial administration of Byzantium. At the same time however, it is acknowledged that eunuchs did not completely disappear from the late empire, though those of this period are certainly much less studied than their predecessors. In this chapter I will explore the evidence for the existence of eunuchs within the empire from 1081–1453, as well as the accuracy of the accepted truth of their declining significance. The diverse theories propounded to explain this development will also be assessed, and alternatives suggested. Ultimately, however, a solution proves elusive, though it can be observed that while Byzantium’s tradition of court eunuchs declined and expired with its empire, the phenomenon was kept alive for several more centuries by the heirs of the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman Turks.

Eunuchs in the late empire In his survey of eunuchs in the Byzantine empire, Guilland observed that after the regaining of Constantinople from the crusaders in 1261 until the fall of the city to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, eunuchs played a much lesser role in government under the Palaiologan dynasty than they had done in the previous history of the empire.1 Further, he commented on the lack of mention of eunuchs under the earlier dynasty of the Komnenoi (1081–1185).2 He also emphasised the declining number of eunuchs being appointed as military commanders from the twelfth century onwards, and noted that none are recorded in such posts during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.3 This picture of the dwindling prominence and significance of Byzantine eunuchs is commonly embraced. It has become usual to speak of Nikephoritzes as the last example of the all-powerful eunuch ministers,4 though the figure of John the protovestiarios under Nikephoros III Botaneiates should not be overlooked. The accession to imperial power of the aristocratic 119

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

family of the Komnenoi, towards the end of the eleventh century, has become particularly associated with the alteration in the political fortunes of eunuchs.5 Such is the prevalence of this perception that eunuchs of the late empire have tended not to receive as much attention as the eunuchs of the early and middle periods.6 Ringrose’s recent monograph on Byzantine eunuchs terminated with Theophylact of Ochrid’s early twelfth-century In Defence of Eunuchs. A rare consideration of Palaiologan eunuchs is the short survey of Niels Gaul.7 However, as Guilland demonstrated himself, Byzantine court eunuchs did not disappear.8 Before considering why historians think eunuch power waned in Byzantium it is vital to explore the continued presence of eunuchs in the empire after 1081, as well as the functions they performed. This will establish whether the view of decline has any truth. Eunuchs 1081–1204 Under Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) two eunuchs are found still holding important military positions. Eustathios Kyminianos was the emperor’s trusted droungarios of the fleet, who had a role to play in the defence of Constantinople in the absence of Alexios.9 The other, Leo Nikerites, is described by Anna Komnene as having spent his life amongst soldiers from his youth and as being of proven reliability.10 He served at one point as the doux of Paristrion.11 He was also governor of the Peloponnese and doux of Cyprus.12 These two eunuchs are amongst the twelve identified by Kazhdan and Epstein as being connected to the court of Alexios by the sources. Kazhdan and Epstein remark that few of these eunuchs had any political significance.13 The other notable cases are the patriarch of Constantinople Eustratios Garidas (1081–1084) (a monk previously popular with Alexios’ mother Anna Dalassene), and the droungarios Symeon (presumably the droungarios Stephen who became known as Symeon the Sanctified when a monk). They also declare that during the reigns of John II Komnenos (1118–1143) and Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) even fewer eunuchs are mentioned (five), and these were ‘church hierarchs, courtiers and princes’ teachers’.14 Nevertheless, Niketas Choniates does stress the influence that the eunuchs of the bedchambers had over Manuel, associating them with the foreigners who had the ear of the emperor.15 Also, Kinnamos emphasises the figure of the eunuch Thomas, who was favoured by the emperor.16 He warned Manuel of a plot of Alexios Axouch in 1167, and later played the familiar role of envoy, to the sultan of Ikonion Kilidj Arslan. Eunuchs are much more evident during the brief period of dominance of Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185). Andronikos was the cousin of Manuel who was regent for Manuel’s son Alexios II (1180–1183) but who secured imperial status for himself and then had Alexios killed. Especially prominent under Andronikos was the eunuch Nikephoros, particularly esteemed by the emperor. He commanded a division of the army and held the position of parakoimomenos.17 Amongst the other eunuchs, Pterygeonites is credited with being persuaded by Andronikos to poison Maria Komnene, whom the eunuch served.18 Interestingly, Pterygeonites had attended Maria’s father Manuel I Komnenos before entering her 120

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

service. Pterygeonites also was one of two officials who oversaw the execution of the empress Maria of Antioch.19 Niketas Choniates also describes the role of a eunuch in defeating near Charax a force led against the emperor by Andronikos Angelos, even though this eunuch only commanded farmers and a troop of Paphlagonian soldiers.20 Unfortunately this eunuch is not identified. It is often observed that under the Angeloi, the dynasty which replaced the Komnenoi in 1185 (until 1204), eunuchs recovered something of their prominence at court.21 This is particularly clear in the reign of Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203). Niketas Choniates depicts the eunuch chamberlains, headed by George Oinaiotes, as being influential with the emperor.22 It is thought that the eunuch described as Alexios’ most trusted friend, and sent by the emperor on embassy to Alexios Ivanko, is this George Oinaiotes.23 Another leading eunuch is John Ionopolites, the parakoimomenos, who undertook military tasks.24 Michael Choniates described him as a new Narses, referring to the famous sixth-century eunuch who won victory over the Goths in Italy.25 Other significant eunuchs are also referred to by Niketas Choniates in his account of the reign of Alexios III. A eunuch played the part of the eparch in entertainments staged at the Blachernai palace. Frustratingly Niketas declines to name this individual, but does record that he was ‘exceedingly wealthy, administered the highest offices, and was a member of the imperial court’.26 Alexios III also had a eunuch as treasurer, Constantine Philoxenites, who was instrumental in having Isaac II Angelos proclaimed emperor again in 1203, following the flight of Alexios after the arrival of the fourth crusade at Constantinople.27 This eunuch also played a key part in the seizure of power by Alexios V Mourtzouphlos in 1204.28 In addition to these indications of politically significant eunuchs in this period it is worth considering evidence for the continued general existence of eunuchs. Eunuchs at court can be referred to incidentally. Anna Komnene refers to a eunuch who was in charge of the imperial bedchamber of her father and mother.29 She also mentions a eunuch named Basil Psyllos, who was an attendant of her father, and a eunuch called Constantine who attended her mother but had before that served Alexios’ father.30 Niketas Choniates alludes to the eunuch Tzitas being assaulted by John Kantakouzenos under Alexios II Komnenos, the eunuchs of the bedchamber informing Alexios III Angelos of the adultery of his wife Euphrosyne Kamaterissa Doukaina, the accidental death of a eunuch on board the same emperor’s ship, and to the eunuchs who guarded forests that were reserved for imperial hunting.31 A eunuch surfaces in John II’s typikon for the Pantokrator monastery: amongst the details of those whose memory was to be commemorated in the monastery there appears the eunuch John the mystikos.32 One of the doctors who treated Alexios I during his final illness was Michael the eunuch.33 Sewter thought that this was the same Michael the eunuch who belonged to the retinue of the empress, and who became the tutor of Gregory Gabras, but they may be separate individuals.34 Anna Komnene herself had furthered her education with instruction from a eunuch, who had been selected by her mother Eirene.35 Maria Komnene, the daughter of Constantine Angelos and Theodora Komnene and thus the granddaughter of Alexios I Komnenos, had in her service a eunuch.36 As has already been seen, 121

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

religious eunuchs are met in association with Alexios I.37 His mother Anna Dalassene assigned a eunuch monk to him as a spiritual guide. The emperor had notable dealings with the eunuch monk Symeon the Sanctified, the former megas droungarios Stephen. Alexios utilised him as a mediator with the rebel Basilakes in Thessalonike,38 and was influential in the restoration of Symeon to Mt Athos. The emperor was later implicated in the complaints about the presence of eunuchs on the Holy Mountain. Another prominent eunuch monk in this period was John the Faster, the abbot of the Petra monastery in Constantinople. John and his institution received benefactions from Alexios. Eunuchs also continued to become bishops. Eustratios Garidas has already been mentioned, and in the reign of Manuel I the eunuch Solomon was the bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia.39 His fate was to be executed by Kilidj Arslan. Another eunuch bishop met under Manuel I is Niketas, who was the bishop of Chonai.40 There is encountered in the reign of Manuel I also the figure of Nikephoros Basilakes’ eunuch cleric Bagoas, though there is the problem of whether he was a real person, based on a real person or just invented.41 There are references to eunuchs as singers in Byzantium too. In addition to the testimony of Odo of Deuil about castrati under Manuel I at the time of the Second Crusade there is that of Anthony of Novgorod, who referred to the role of eunuch singers in a service at Hagia Sophia which he attended in 1200.42 Finally, as a general point, Fulcher’s comment on the number of eunuchs in Constantinople, referred to in the previous chapter, should not be forgotten. Eunuchs 1204–1453 During the period from 1204 to 1261, when Constantinople was lost to the Byzantine empire and regional power bases arose in Epirus and at Nicaea, eunuchs are elusive in the historical record. Guilland notes, for instance, that George Akropolites, who wrote a history of the years 1203–1261, does not mention any eunuchs.43 Even after the recapture of Constantinople by Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282) in 1261, the number of politically important eunuchs found existing in the Palaiologan period is minimal. The most significant example is that of Andronikos Eonopolites. When he was tatas of the imperial palace he co-commanded the Byzantine army at the battle of Belgrade (Berat in Albania) in 1281, successfully defeating the forces of Charles of Anjou.44 Under Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) Eonopolites served as megas droungarios, and is recorded as escorting the body of Michael VIII for burial.45 Also during the reign of Andronikos II, the eunuch Michael Kallikrenites was sent three times as a mediator to the emperor’s grandson Andronikos III during the civil wars of the 1320s.46 The same emperor utilised one of his eunuchs as an envoy to the grand primikerios Kassianos.47 The existence of influential eunuchs during the regency of Anne of Savoy for her son John V Palaiologos is indicated by John Kantakouzenos, when he describes how the wealth of his mother Theodora Kantakouzene was shared out amongst the ministers of the empress.48 Looking further afield for prominent eunuchs, in Trebizond there was John, who was megas doux there in the first half of the fourteenth century (1332–1344).49 122

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

The existence of politically significant eunuchs under the Palaiologoi does indeed seem limited then, but as under the Komnenoi and the Angeloi there is the sense that eunuchs were still a feature of the Byzantine court, and of Byzantine society in general. Although the fourteenth-century treatise of Pseudo-Kodinos detailing civil and ecclesiastical offices and court ceremonies does not single out eunuchs for special attention (unlike the ninth-century Kletorologion of Philotheos), Gaul suggests that this indicates rather their greater integration in Byzantine society: offices were potentially open to them.50 More concrete evidence for the survival of eunuchs exists. It is known that Andronikos II had a eunuch servant Karvas, who was stabbed when attempting to enter the house in which Michael Komnenos Angelos had been confined and which he had set on fire.51 The treatise of Pseudo-Kodinos does make one explicit mention of eunuchs. In the description of the coronation ceremony it is asserted that the empress is escorted either by two of her closest relatives or two eunuchs.52 Guilland notes that there are several references to imperial women in the Palaiologan period being accompanied by eunuchs.53 John Kantakouzenos does mention that eunuchs escorted Anne of Savoy (whose coronation was the source of the description in Pseudo-Kodinos’ treatise) at her marriage to Andronikos III in 1326.54 John’s own daughter Theodora Kantakouzene was also attended by eunuchs at her marriage in 1346 to Orhan, the emir of Bithynia.55 One can add the eunuchs who formed part of the train of Anna Palaiologina, the daughter of Michael VIII and Theodora, when she journeyed to visit her prospective fiancé, Milutin the son of Stefan Uroš I of Serbia.56 A eunuch known to have begun his career as an attendant on the empress is John of Heraclea, the uncle of Nikephoros Gregoras.57 He was in the service of the wife of Michael VIII, Theodora Palaiologina.58 Subsequently John embraced a religious career, having been attracted to the ascetic life whilst still working at the imperial court. He became bishop of Nicomedia under Andronikos II, and later metropolitan of Heraclea. Other religious eunuchs are encountered under the Palaiologoi, such as George Pepagomenos, who was megas ekklesiarches of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the 1320s, and Neophytos the monk, who in 1294 also served on an aborted embassy to the kings of Cyprus and Armenia to arrange the marriage of Michael IX Palaiologos; on the initial stage of the journey he fell into the hands of pirates but managed to escape.59 Considering this brief overview of eunuchs in the periods 1081–1204 and 1204–1453, it can indeed be asserted that eunuchs did not completely disappear from the Byzantine landscape (at least not until the fifteenth century) but that the existence of individual eunuchs who wielded significant political power or influence did decline, the last great example being that of Andronikos Eonopolites. It seems that the thirteenth century does constitute the key turning point, as Guilland asserted. Politically prominent eunuchs may be scarce under the first three rulers of the Komnenian dynasty (especially John II), but there are some, and under Andronikos I and the Angeloi such eunuchs are much in evidence. It is, then, entirely legitimate to inquire why this apparent shift occurred.

123

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

Theories about the decline of the Byzantine court eunuch In his survey of eunuchs in Byzantium Guilland posited a number of explanations for the eclipse of the Byzantine eunuch. The first of these was the influence of the West on Byzantine thought in general. This resulted, he said, in a negative attitude towards eunuchs, and thus a reluctance to deploy them. Certainly there are some very striking hostile reactions to eunuchs in late Byzantine texts. Particularly noteworthy is the adverse depiction of eunuchs in vernacular romances of the time.60 Constantine Manasses’ account in Aristandros and Kallithea of the viper dying after biting the far more poisonous eunuch is especially arresting. Turning to other texts, in his Life of the bishop John of Heraclea, it has been remarked that Nikephoros Gregoras is sensitive about the fact that his uncle was a eunuch.61 It should be pointed out, however, that negative images of eunuchs had never gone out of fashion in Byzantium. It is not necessary to posit a western influence to account for them. Further, there also exist in the late period positive presentations of eunuchs. For instance, as Gaul rightly notes, the vernacular romances can also contain the old ideal of the eunuch as loyal and trustworthy agents, the prime example being Vetanos in Livistros and Rhodamne.62 Eunuchs with court and ecclesiastical offices could be the recipients of literary works which celebrated them.63 In the late period the familiar love/hate attitude towards eunuchs, examined in the previous chapter, continues to be found. More fundamentally, one can also question Guilland’s assertion that Byzantium had become westernised. Perhaps not entirely convinced with his theory of the westernisation of Byzantine attitudes, Guilland also suggested that the emperors of the Palaiologan period did not have to depend on eunuchs as much as previous emperors had done since they had a firmer grip on imperial power. Again, this position can be questioned. Gaul certainly found it less than convincing.64 He notes that although rule by an aristocratic family had become established (indeed, it had been since the time of the Komnenoi) this did not necessarily make for greater control: competition for power could come from within the family itself. The late empire was no stranger to conflict over the exercise of imperial authority, and the Palaiologan period was especially marked by devastating civil wars. However, although Guilland was surely wide of the mark in identifying greater imperial stability as a factor in the decline in the use and prominence of court eunuchs, his indication of the importance of the issue of the changed nature of imperial rule has been picked up and developed by other Byzantinists. It is commonly asserted that the advent of the Komnenoi witnessed a revolution in the character of the government of the Byzantine empire. The accession of Alexios I Komnenos is held to have ushered in aristocratic family rule, contrasting with the previous nature of imperial rule, characterised as meritocratic government headed by a sacred emperor. Alexios placed his family at the heart of the government of the empire, whereas previous emperors had shown wariness in allowing family members too much access to power and had depended on a wider pool for their officials. Under the Komnenoi, those not in the charmed family circle lost out.65 In this situation it is deemed unsurprising that eunuchs suffered. Lemerle observes that the phenomenon of the 124

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

paradynast (the emperor’s right hand man, many of whom were eunuchs) came to an end with Alexios; this emperor’s right hand men were in fact female relatives, first his mother Anna Dalassene and then his wife Eirene Doukaina.66 Despite the popularity of the interpretation that eunuch power declined with the rise of aristocratic family power, there are some problems with the theory. As has been seen, significant court eunuchs did not entirely disappear under the Komnenoi. Alexios’ reign witnessed the careers of Eustathios Kyminianos and Leo Nikerites, and under Manuel the influence wielded by Thomas is reminiscent of the traditional role ascribed to court eunuchs. This familiar scenario is even more pronounced under Andronikos I, and persisted under the new aristocratic dynasty of the Angeloi, as Kazhdan and Constable acknowledged.67 Perhaps, then, the fluctuating fortunes of court eunuchs between 1081 and 1204 is a reflection of alternative strategies for the exercise of power rather than the simple consequence of family rule. I have previously suggested that the value of eunuchs as imperial agents had become compromised in Byzantine eyes in the light of eleventh century politics, when it became especially clear from the example of the Paphlagonian dynasty that eunuchs could have agendas of their own.68 The self-interest of eunuchs was perhaps more pronounced due to the evident rise of the home grown eunuch in the middle Byzantine period, contrasting with the late antique reliance on the eunuch who was a foreign outsider. Perhaps, however, the infamous example of Nikephoritzes (and that of John the protovestiarios) had simply given pause for thought. Against such a backdrop Alexios deliberately sought to create alternative supports for imperial power. Interestingly, he chose to rely not just on family members, but on foreign outsiders too.69 Manuel I has a reputation for relying on foreigners.70 The significant return of eunuchs under Andronikos I and the Angeloi suggests that some emperors chose to rely on more traditional forms of rule, or had to seek out traditional forms of support. This consideration of imperial power and eunuchs up to the year 1204, throws attention back on the thirteenth century as the significant period, as Guilland appreciated. This is when the rarity of powerful court eunuchs becomes truly striking. Recourse to the theory of the effects of family rule has been made by some. For instance, Gaul remarks on the emergence of ‘household government’ under the Laskarids at Nicaea, which persisted under the Palaiologoi.71 As has been seen however, the development of aristocratic imperial power did not necessarily spell the end of eunuch power. Indeed, one might expect the emphasis on family and household to result in the greater influence of eunuch servants. A number of other factors potentially contributing to the situation are worth considering. It seems striking that the Nicaean empire is distinguished for its lack of prominent court eunuchs. Could it be that the cataclysm of the loss of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade had a deep impact on Byzantine traditions, such as the exercise of imperial power and even the creation of eunuchs? The long term political context can be borne in mind too. Even after the recovery of Constantinople, the empire experienced the gradual loss of territory, which could have affected the supply of eunuchs and the number of them available to work for the imperial family and in imperial government. Of course the ultimate conquerors of the Byzantine empire, 125

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

the Ottoman Turks, employed eunuchs themselves, eunuchs which could not be Muslims. It is usually said that this use of eunuchs was on a relatively small scale prior to the capture of Constantinople in 1453, but nevertheless the custom did pre-date this event, drawing on Muslim precedents, not just the example of Byzantium.72 A eunuch called Taranges had great influence with the Seljuk sultan Alp Arslan, and he was entrusted with the sultan’s forces at the battle of Mantzikert in 1071, at which the Byzantines were famously defeated.73 Lowry emphasises the fact that Orhan already had ‘a eunuch in his entourage’ in 1324.74 This is the case of the eunuch who was put in charge of the administration of a hospice in Bithynia. The eunuch (named Şerefeddîn Mukbil) was a slave who had been freed, and Lowry suggests that he had originally served Orhan’s father Osman.75 Also, in his history Kantakouzenos refers to Orhan’s use of eunuchs as ambassadors, such as Khatzes and Mertzianes.76 The early Ottomans may thus have disrupted the availability of eunuchs in Constantinople in more ways than one. Is it a coincidence that the last named significant court eunuch appears in the reign of Andronikos II, the time of the rise of Osman, founder of the Ottoman dynasty? The case of the Ottoman sultans reminds one of the theory that the use of eunuchs symbolised the power of absolutist rulers, and perhaps this is of relevance to the apparent decline of the Byzantine eunuch. It is often remarked that the late Byzantine emperors had lost something of the status of their forerunners, that they were less impressive figures, family heads rather than sacred monarchs. In such an altered situation perhaps eunuchs were no longer an essential imperial item. The problem with these theories, and the theory of family government, is that eunuchs do not completely disappear from Byzantium. If they continued to exist (at least until the early fifteenth century), why were they no longer gaining political prominence? This fact suggests that they were not being given politically important offices, that there was a strategy for the exercise of imperial power that did not privilege eunuchs. Perhaps, however, there is a need for caution about the extent of our knowledge about eunuchs in the late empire. Could it be that the available historiographical sources are not providing a full picture? Akropolites’ lack of mention of eunuchs is striking, but it is matched by Zonaras’ account of the reign of Alexios I, even though the existence of Eustathios Kyminianos and Leo Nikerites is attested by Anna Komnene’s Alexiad. Zonaras does not even spell out that Eustratios Garidas was a eunuch. In addition to silences, there can be frustrating allusions. Kantakouzenos indicates that they were influential eunuchs under Anne of Savoy, but he does not make clear who they were. There may also be an element of negative reporting at play. Do eunuchs only get especial mention when an historian is seeking to blacken a regime, as in the case of Ammianus Marcellinus’ treatment of the reign of Constantius II? Of late Byzantine imperial figures it is notable that the controversial individuals Andronikos I Komnenos and Anne of Savoy are associated with powerful eunuchs. On the other hand, while one is always at the mercy of one’s sources, a detectable lack of prominent court eunuchs only emerges in the late period. Further, not all mention of court eunuchs by historiographers is used for negative effect. Ultimately, then, the explanation for the apparent decline of the politically significant Byzantine court eunuch 126

THE TW I LI GHT OF THE BYZAN T I N E E U N U C H

proves elusive. The most popular current theory, that it is a consequence of the altered character of imperial government, is not without its problems. Perhaps it is part of the answer, but it is not the definitive solution. A range of other factors may have contributed to the situation.

Conclusion An exploration of the existence of court eunuchs in the late Byzantine empire from 1081 to 1453 indicates that under Alexios I Komnenos and his heirs John II and Manuel I that there was a decline in the prominence of court eunuchs, but that they re-emerged in force under Andronikos I Komnenos and the Angeloi. As Guilland asserted, the real shift appears to come after 1204, with the last individually named significant court eunuch appearing in the reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos. Why this should be so remains a matter for debate. What is clear is that eunuchs did not disappear from the Byzantine court completely, at least not before the fifteenth century, and that eunuchs could still be credited with influence, such as those under Anne of Savoy. What is clear also, is that the ancient tradition of the court eunuch was to thrive under the heirs of the Byzantine empire, the Ottoman Turks, and was to do so until the demise of the Ottoman empire in the twentieth century. The fate of court eunuchs mirrors the fates of the empires they served.

127

CONCLUS ION

This book has been primarily concerned with the study of eunuchs in the Byzantine empire, across the entire chronological span of that empire, from the fourth century to the fifteenth century AD. On reflection, the book could have been titled The Rise and Fall of the Byzantine Eunuch. Eunuchs who served the Byzantine imperial court, either as personal attendants or government officials (civil, military, or both) have dominated the account, since the court role was the main reason for the existence of eunuchs in Byzantium, but also because many of our sources take political history as their subject. Nevertheless, other roles have also received attention, in particular those in the field of religion: eunuchs were met as monks and clergy, and even as saints. As for other roles, eunuchs were also encountered as servants of the elite, singers, teachers, doctors, friends, lovers and family members. Thus the book has attempted to reflect the range of roles eunuchs played in the Byzantine empire. However, the book has not just been concerned with the history of eunuchs of the Byzantine empire, but also with the history of eunuchs in general, from their earliest known appearance to the present day. The aim of this broad approach has been to set Byzantine eunuchs in a wider frame and so avoid a ‘contextual vacuum’. Some readers may have preferred a more focused and detailed examination of only the eunuchs of the Byzantine empire, but a key purpose of this book was to demonstrate the value of the broad approach: it enables the use of a comparative methodology which results in a better understanding of the history of eunuchs in Byzantium. It has been seen that Byzantine eunuchs form part of a much larger history of their kind. They filled roles many other eunuchs filled, both before them and after them, in different societies and cultures. This regularity reflects how eunuchs were perceived and valued generally. At the same time, however, the distinctive aspects of Byzantine eunuchs were thrown into sharp relief, such as the shift from the prevalence of foreign slave eunuchs to those who were native and free. Thus the contrast supplied by the broad approach was illuminating too. The approach also revealed emphatically the more fundamental problems of studying eunuchs, such as the personal attitudes of commentators (ancient and modern), the issues of terminology and identification, and the paucity of evidence, in particular the lack of the eunuch voice. At the same time, knowledge of other eunuchs revealed more positive topics for investigation, such as the potential for 128

CONCLUSI ON

the creation of self identity, be it in the paintings of castrati, the photographs of the Skoptsy, or the interviews granted by hijras. A consideration of castration not only aided appreciation of the fact that there existed other categories of eunuchs, not just those who were deliberately castrated, but also revealed common concerns about the practice of castration as well as common perceptions of the nature and character of eunuchs because of their altered physical state. Time and again the broad approach pays dividends: general issues come sharply into focus, new insights can be inspired, and the specific context is clarified. Regarding Byzantine eunuchs in particular, the book has placed the large general questions about their existence to the fore. Why did the empire embrace court eunuchs from the fourth century onwards? Why was there an apparent shift from foreign slave eunuchs to native free eunuchs in the middle period? What was the attitude of the Byzantines towards eunuchs, and were the latter constructed as a third gender? Why was there a presumed decline in the prominence of eunuchs in the late empire? These are challenging questions, and neat solutions do not always present themselves. Some suggestions were, however, offered. It is evident that the emergence of court eunuchs is associated with the evolving nature of imperial power in the Roman empire. Rather than suddenly being adopted, eunuchs gradually established their presence at court until they became a vital signifier of imperial status. No doubt the model was provided from the east, but from the Hellenistic kingdoms as well as Persia. Regarding the existence of native eunuchs in the middle Byzantine period, it was seen that the evidence suggested that it was already feasible by the fourth and fifth centuries. Certainly there were attractions, notably in terms of a career, but Christianisation should be considered a factor too. Despite Christian concern about castration, specifically self-castration, it appears that castration of one’s children could be seen as a positive Christian act. In such a context it is no wonder that court eunuchs began to be drawn more from the native population. One of the striking things about Byzantine eunuchs is how much a part of their society they could be, sharing its values and attachments. They had a place as a family member (son, sibling, nephew and uncle) and forged other social ties (a picture again rewardingly illuminated by the comparative approach, e.g. the parallels with the lives of the castrati). Surely this greater social integration of Byzantine eunuchs contributed to the development of Ringrose’s view that there emerged a positive identity for eunuchs in Byzantine society, one that also constructed them as a third gender. However, it was seen that Byzantine views of eunuchs were in fact much more fluid. Both positive and negative constructs were possible (both based on ancient models), and eunuchs could be assessed as individuals, in line with Theophylact of Ochrid’s argument, which seems positively modern. As for gender, the reading of eunuchs as neither male nor female was a possibility, but only one, and the issue of Byzantine conceptions of gender identity (especially of that of men) needs far more study. Also in need of further study is the history of the late empire. Why eunuchs should decline in power and prominence in this period must be connected with the wider social and political context. The cataclysm of 1204 and the temporary loss of Constantinople must have played its part, though at the same time it cannot be ignored that eunuchs 129

CONCLUSI ON

still existed in the empire into the fourteenth century. The factor of the rise of the Ottoman Turks, and their own use of eunuchs, probably contributed to the altering picture too. This book has not been intended as the final word on Byzantine eunuchs, but as a broad framework, the advocacy of a comparative approach, and the identification and discussion of key questions. There is no doubt that the topic would reward further study (such as more detailed analysis of specific texts), and that debates about the history of Byzantine eunuchs will continue. Having reached the end of the project it is clear to me that a more detailed and thematic volume remains to be written. Such a book could include, for instance, chapters on law, medicine, sex, gender, slavery, religion, family, literature, art, music, war, politics and the imperial court. It could be supported by a comprehensive prosopography, which explicitly and consistently engaged with the issue of how to identify an individual as a eunuch. Such a work would be an immense undertaking, but extremely valuable. It is hoped that the present volume will go some way to encouraging and assisting such a project. For the moment, I take my leave of Byzantine eunuchs but will no doubt return to them due to their inherent fascination and the fact that they are one of the defining features of Byzantine civilisation.

130

APP ENDIX 1 List of late Roman and Byzantine emperors

It should be noted that this list does not include all the western emperors of the later Roman period. I have only included those who are of particular relevance to this book. Constantine I (306–337) Constantine II (337–340) Constans I (337–350) Constantius II (337–361) Julian (361–363) Jovian (363–364) Valentinian I (364–375) Valens (364–378) Gratian (375–383) Valentinian II (383–392) Magnus Maximus (383–387) Theodosius I (379–395) Arcadius (395–408) Honorius (395–423) Theodosius II (408–450) Valentinian III (425–455) Marcian (450–457) Leo I (457–474) Leo II (474) Zeno (474–491) Basiliscus (475–476) Anastasius I (491–518) Justin I (518–527) Justinian I (527–565) Justin II (565–578) Tiberius I (578–582) Maurice (582–602) Phokas (602–610) Heraclius (610–641)

Constantine III (641) Heraclonas (641) Constans II (641–668) Constantine IV (668–685) Justinian II (685–695) Leontius (695–698) Tiberius II (698–705) Justinian II, second reign (705–711) Philippicus (711–713) Anastasius II (713–714) Theodosius III (715–717) Leo III (717–741) Constantine V (741–775) Leo IV (775–780) Constantine VI (780–797) Eirene (797–802) Nikephoros I (802–811) Staurakios (811) Michael I (811–813) Leo V (813–820) Michael II (820–829) Theophilos (829–842) Michael III (842–867) Basil I (867–886) Leo VI (886–912) Alexander (912–913) Constantine VII (913–959) Romanos I Lekapenos (920–944) Romanos II (959–963) 131

APPENDI X 1

Nikephoros II Phokas (963–969) John I Tzimiskes (969–976) Basil II (976–1025) Constantine VIII (1025–1028) Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034) Michael IV (1034–1041) Michael V (1041–1042) Zoe and Theodora (1042) Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055) Theodora, second reign (1055–1056) Michael VI (1056–1057) Isaac I Komnenos (1057–1059) Constantine X Doukas (1059–1067) Romanos IV Diogenes (1068–1071) Michael VII Doukas (1071–1078) Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078–1081) Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) John II Komnenos (1118–1143) Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) Alexios II Komnenos (1180–1183) Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185)

Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) Isaac II Angelos and Alexios IV Angelos (1203–1204) Alexios V Mourtzouphlos (1204) Theodore I Laskaris (1204–1222) John III Vatazes (1222–1254) Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) John IV Laskaris (1258–1261) Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282) Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328–1341) John V Palaiologos (1341–1391) John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) Andronikos IV Palaiologos (1376–1379) John VII Palaiologos (1390) Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) John VIII Palaiologos (1425–1448) Constantine XI Palaiologos (1449–1453)

132

APP ENDIX 2 Select prosopography of late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs

The following is a select prosopography of eunuchs of the late Roman and Byzantine empires. It does not claim to be comprehensive (such a task would be enormous) but has attempted at least to record the majority of leading individuals who are soundly attested as having been eunuchs. In general, I have aimed to exclude those who are only thought likely to have been eunuchs because of their offices and/or titles (e.g. those who are cubicularii, koubikoularioi, protovestiarioi or sakellarioi), though some examples are included as they seem of particular interest. Thus I have not drawn on the evidence of seals, which do not specify if an individual is a eunuch, even though it might be supposed that they are. (Seals can, however, illumine the careers of those who are known from other sources to have been eunuchs.) I have not incorporated those who are identified as eunuchs by sources but are not given a personal name. Further, I have endeavoured to exclude those who are categorised as eunuchs by late or unreliable sources (e.g. the eunuchs who feature in the Narratio de Sancta Sophia). The index will guide readers to such other eunuchs. The compilation of the prosopography reinforces one of the key methodological questions raised in Chapter 2: how does one know if someone is a eunuch if they are not identified as such by a source? It is clear that the major prosopographies of the late Roman and Byzantine empires (PLRE; PBE; PMBZ; PBW; PLP), which have assisted greatly in the compilation of this present one (and are referred to as appropriate), have also faced this problem. It is evident that some prosopographers are more willing to rely on the evidence of office and/or title whereas others remain extremely cautious, if not overly so. It is also obvious that there can be variety of practice in a single series. Thus there is undoubted scope for a more comprehensive prosopography of late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs which is consistently explicit about this thorny issue (the establishment of the category of ‘Presumed Eunuch’ in PBW is a step forward). The further work of PBW and PMBZ will contribute enormously to such a proposed prosopography. In the meantime, it is hoped that the prosopography appended here will assist future fruitful research on late Roman and Byzantine eunuchs. From this selective list of eunuchs, it can be noted that the eleventh century witnesses the highest number of entries per century. The fifth century marks a peak in the early period, declining in particular in the seventh and eighth centuries (the 133

APPENDI X 2

latter especially), but the ninth and tenth centuries see a return to the high of the fifth century. There is a dramatic decline in the twelfth century, which continues down to the fifteenth century.

1. Acolius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Ac(h)olius 2, p. 6; Scholten (1995), 227. Acolius was praepositus sacri cubiculi at Ravenna when Germanus of Auxerre visited in 448. He had a male foster child (alumnus), who was cured by the saint. After Germanus’ death Acolius embalmed his body at Ravenna.

2. Aetios (eighth and ninth centuries) See: PBE, Aetios 1; PMBZ 106; ODB, 30. Aetios was one of the trusted eunuchs of the empress Eirene. He was protospatharios, patrikios, and became strategos of the Anatolikon theme and count of the Opsikion theme. He had a brother Leo, whom he planned to make emperor. Perhaps his career continued after the fall of Eirene; an Aetios patrikios was among the dead when the Byzantines were defeated by the Bulgars in battle in 811.

3. Agapetos (ninth century) See: PBE, Agapetos 4; PMBZ 120. Agapetos was koubikoularios and protovestiarios, so possibly a eunuch, though this is not considered by either the PBE or the PMBZ. In around 844 (together with the patrikios and sakellarios Leo) he visited the monk Ioannikios on Mt Olympos in Bithynia to obtain his blessing.

4. Amantius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Amantius 1, p. 66. He was the castrensis of the empress Eudoxia. He assisted the bishops John of Caesarea and Porphyry of Gaza when they visited Constantinople.

5. Amantius (fifth to sixth centuries) See: PLRE 2, Amantius 4, pp. 67–8. He was praepositus sacri cubiculi under Anastasius I, and enjoyed great influence. He was executed shortly after the accession of Justin I, on suspicion of being involved in a plot against Justin. He was a Monophysite.

134

APPENDI X 2

6. Anastasios (tenth century) He was sakellarios (and so possibly a eunuch) under Romanos I Lekapenos. He plotted against Romanos on behalf of Constantine VII. When the plot was exposed he was made a monk. Also implicated in the plot was the koitonites Theodoret.

7. Anastasios Gongylios (tenth century) See: Magdalino (1998), 144. Anastasios was a eunuch from Paphlagonia. He was one of the eunuchs prominent during the regency of Zoe Karbonopsina. He was praipositos. He had a brother who was also a eunuch, Constantine Gongylios. It seems that he fell from power when Romanos Lekapenos seized power.

8. Anatolius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Anatolius 2, p. 59; Guyot (1980), 181–2; Scholten (1995), 245. A eunuch of the imperial bedchamber. He was cured by the relics of St Luke in Constantinople, during the reign of Constantius II.

9. Andrew (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Andreas 8, pp. 76–7. He was the cubicularius and sacellarius of the empress Sophia. He was also a Monophysite, and became a monk. He had his own servant, Probinus.

10. Andrew (seventh century) See: PBE, Andreas 1; PMBZ 353. He was a koubikoularios. He helped prevent Constans II taking his wife (the empress Fausta) and sons to the west. He was sent by Constantine IV as an ambassador to the Caliph Muawiya in 667. At Damascus he was insulted by Sergios, who said that he was neither man nor woman. When Sergios was later captured he had him castrated then hanged.

11. Andronikos Eonopolites (thirteenth century) See: PLP 6713. This eunuch was tatas of the imperial court under Michael VIII Palaiologos and megas droungarios under Andronikos II Palaiologos.

135

APPENDI X 2

12. Anthimos (ninth century) See: PBE, Anthimos 6; PMBZ 493. This eunuch was exarch of the monasteries on the island of Glykeria, at the time of the exile of Niketas of Medikion (815–820). He treated Niketas badly.

13. Antiochus (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Antiochus 5, pp. 101–2; Scholten (1995), 228–30; Greatrex and Bardill (1996). This eunuch was a Persian. He was praepositus sacri cubiculi, and held the rank of patricius. He was influential under Arcadius, but became powerful under Theodosius II. On his dismissal he was made a monk and a priest.

14. Antony Paches (eleventh century) See: PBW, Antonios 101. This eunuch was a relative of emperor Michael IV, and became bishop of Nicomedia. In 1037 he played a part in the attempt to replace the patriarch Alexios Stoudites with his eunuch relative John the orphanotrophos.

15. Arsacius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Arsacius 2, p. 110; Guyot (1980), 185; Scholten (1995), 244. He was sent with the prefect of Egypt to install Gregory as bishop of Alexandria (AD 339). The PLRE asserts that ‘He was presumably a cubicularius’.

16. Arsacius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Arsacius 2, p. 151; Scholten (1995), 246. Together with the eunuch Terentius, this eunuch undertook a special mission for the emperor Honorius in 408. Arsacius was rewarded with promotion, to the position of deputy of the praepositus sacri cubiculi. Following a military mutiny he was deprived of office and exiled to Milan.

17. Arsenios (eleventh century) This eunuch monk succeeded Symeon the New Theologian as the abbot of the monastery of St Mamas.

18. Baanes (ninth century) See: PBE, Baanes 5; PMBZ 719. He was patrikios, praipositos and sakellarios. He was eminent under Basil I. During the celebrations for the baptism of Basil’s infant son Stephen on Christmas 136

APPENDI X 2

Day in 867, after the church service Baanes processed with the imperial family back to the palace in a horse-drawn chariot, holding the child in his arms. He represented the emperor at the council of 869–870, and also when he was away on campaign in 878. If he is to be identified with Baanes Angures (PBE, Baanes 6), as he is in PMBZ, he was already praipositos in 861. PBE notes the suggestion, however, that this Baanes was confused with the praipositos Michael Angures (PBE, Michael 12; PMBZ 5120).

19. Barbatos (tenth century) He was patrikios and parakoimomenos (so possibly a eunuch) under Alexander I.

20. Bardio (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Bardio, pp. 147–8; Guyot (1980), 191–2; Scholten (1995), 244–5. He was a powerful imperial eunuch under Constantius II. He had the rank of comes.

21. Basil (ninth century) See: PBE, Basilios 154; PMBZ 940. This eunuch was a protospatharios. He kept an inventory of the expenses of the emperor Michael III, which Basil I asked to see on his accession in 867.

22. Basil (ninth century) See: Tougher (1997b), 200. This eunuch went on embassy to Baghdad during the reign of Leo VI, in the first years of the tenth century. Perhaps he is to be identified with the eunuch Sinoutis.

23. Basil (eleventh century) See: PBW, Basileios 109. This eunuch was governor of the Bulgars in the mid-eleventh century. He was also a monk. He was killed in 1053 in battle with the Pechenegs.

24. Basil (eleventh century) See: PBW, Basileios 138. This eunuch belonged to the household of Kale Pakouriane, in the late eleventh century.

137

APPENDI X 2

25. Basil Boilas (eleventh century) See: PBW, Basileios 140. This eunuch was a priest at the church of Theotokos Eleousa in Constantinople. He was one of the witnesses of the will of Kale Pakouriane in 1098.

26. Basil Lekapenos (tenth century) See: ODB, 270; Brokkaar (1972); Pentcheva (2007); Ross (1958). Basil was the illegitimate son of Romanos Lekapenos by a ‘Scythian’ woman. He was a significant political force under Constantine VII, Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes and Basil II. He first became parakoimomenos in the reign of his brother-in-law Constantine VII. Nikephoros II Phokas made him proedros, having created the honour for the eunuch. He finally fell from power under Basil II, who turned against his dominant great-uncle. The eunuch was a notable patron of the arts.

27. Basil Pediates (eleventh century) See: PBW, Basileios 106. This eunuch was praipositos, and in 1040 shared the command in Sicily with Stephen. They fled to Longobardia after Sicily was recaptured by the Arabs.

28. Basil Psyllos (twelfth century) This eunuch was an attendant of Alexios I Komnenos. He was involved in the discovery of a plot against the emperor. Perhaps Basil Psyllos is to be identified with the eunuch Basil the nobelissimos who was an ambassador with Constantine the notary for Richard Siniscard (Richard the Seneschal, a nephew of Robert Guiscard), and who signed the Treaty of Devol.

29. Brison (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Brison, p. 242; Scholten (1995), 249–50. He was a eunuch of the empress Eudoxia (‘one of her cubicularii’, assumes the PLRE), and a friend of John Chrysostom. He was involved in anti-Arian demonstrations in Constantinople.

30. Calligonus (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Calligonus, p. 173; Guyot (1980), 193; Scholten (1995), 219. He was the praepositus sacri cubiculi of Valentinian II, so possibly a eunuch. He threatened Ambrose in 386, and was executed for ‘gross immorality’.

138

APPENDI X 2

31. Callinicus (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Callinicus 2, pp. 260–1. He was prominent late in the reign of Justinian I and in the reign of Justin II. He was patricius, praepositus sacri cubiculi, and also sacellarius. He was present at Justinian’s deathbed and heard his dying words. He was pro-Monophysite.

32. Calopodius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Calopodius 2, p. 254; Scholten (1995), 250. A leading chamberlain (PRIMIK‰RIOQ) (so possibly a eunuch) of Leo I, he was sent by the emperor as a messenger to Daniel the Stylite. He built an oratory of the archangel Michael at Parthenopolis, and asked Daniel to supply monks for it.

33. Calopodius (sixth century) This eunuch was oikonomos of Hagia Sophia in 511, and stole records from the church for the emperor Anastasius.

34. Calopodius (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Calopodius 1, pp. 267–8; ODB, 1096. He was a cubicularius, possibly praepositus sacri cubiculi. He was also spatharius. The Green faction complained about him in the hippodrome in Constantinople during the reign of Justinian I.

35. Calopodius (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Calopodius 2, p. 268. He was the primicerius of either the empress Sophia or Anastasia. He fostered a boy from an aristocratic family.

36. Calotychius (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Calotychius, p. 268. This eunuch was a cubicularius of the empress Theodora, and was involved in the attempt to install the Monophysite Theodosius as bishop of Alexandria.

37. Chamaretos (ninth century) He was koubikoularios (so perhaps a eunuch) and the leading intimate of Leo Apostypes during the reign of Basil I, and was among those who accused Leo of treason.

139

APPENDI X 2

38. Chresimos (fourteenth century) See: PLP 30991. This eunuch owned a house in Constantinople, prior to 1342.

39. Christopher (ninth to tenth centuries) Christopher was prominent under Leo VI. He was protovestiarios (so perhaps a eunuch) and founded a monastery.

40. Christopher (tenth century) This eunuch was patrikios during the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas. He was a prominent figure in the reception of Liudprand of Cremona in Constantinople in 968.

41. Chrysaphius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Chrysaphius qui et Ztummas, pp. 295–7; Scholten (1995), 248–9. This eunuch was spatharius under Theodosius II, and had great influence. Famously, he hatched a plot to have Attila the Hun assassinated. He was a Monophysite, and was the godson of Eutyches. After the death of Theodosius, Pulcheria had Chrysaphius murdered.

42. Constantine (ninth century) See: PBE, Konstantinos 29; PMBZ 3925. Constantine was a son of Leo V, and was known originally by the name Symbatios. When his father was overthrown by Michael II, Constantine was castrated and made a monk, taking the name Basil. His brothers Basil (PBE, Basilios 54; PMBZ 927), Gregory (PBE, Gregorios 70; PMBZ 2474) and Theodosios (PBE, Theodosios 39; PMBZ 7871) were also castrated and made monks, exiled to the island of Prote. Theodosios died after being castrated.

43. Constantine (eleventh to twelfth centuries) This eunuch was in the retinue of the empress Eirene Doukaina, wife of Alexios I Komnenos. He had previously been a servant of Alexios’ father, in charge of his table. He revealed a plot against Alexios.

140

APPENDI X 2

44. Constantine Bouninos (eleventh century) See: PBW, Konstantinos 145. This eunuch was a priest in the church of the Theotokos tou Eukteriou in Constantinople. He was one of the witnesses of the will of Kale Pakouriane in 1098.

45. Constantine Gongylios (tenth century) See: Magdalino (1998), 144. Constantine was a eunuch from Paphlagonia. He was one of the eunuchs prominent during the regency of Zoe Karbonopsina. He was praipositos. He had a brother who was also a eunuch, Anastasios Gongylios. It seems that he fell from power when Romanos Lekapenos seized power. However Constantine made a return to prominence later. Under Constantine VII he led an expedition to Crete in 949 as droungarios of the fleet.

46. Constantine Phagitzes (eleventh century) See: PBW, Konstantinos 106. This eunuch was a Paphlagonian, and served Michael IV. He was sent to fetch Constantine Dalassesnos when Ergodotes had failed.

47. Constantine Philoxenites (twelfth to thirteenth centuries) This eunuch was treasurer under Alexios III Angelos. He was instrumental in having Isaac II Angelos proclaimed emperor again in 1203, after the flight of Alexios. He also played a key part in the seizure of power by Alexios V Mourtzouphlos in 1204.

48. Constantine the nobelissimos (eleventh century) See: PBW, Konstantinos 64. He was the brother of John the orphanotrophos and Michael IV, and the uncle of Michael V. He was doux of Antioch and domestic of the scholai of the East. He was the first eunuch to be nobelissimos, a title given to him by his nephew Michael V, under whom he was particularly prominent. When Michael V fell from power, he and Constantine were blinded together. He was made a monk and exiled. He was later transferred to Samos by Constantine IX Monomachos. He was buried in the monastery of Nea Mone on Chios. He had owned estates in Opsikion, and a house next to the church of Holy Apostles in Constantinople.

141

APPENDI X 2

49. Constantine the Paphlagonian (ninth to tenth centuries) See: Magdalino (1998), 143–4; Jenkins (1965a); Tougher (1997b), esp. 200–1; Garland (1999), 118–23. Constantine was made a eunuch by his father, a farmer in Paphlagonia. He ended up serving Zoe Karbonopsina, the wife of Leo VI. Constantine replaced the eunuch Samonas as parakoimomenos when Leo VI was still alive. Constantine played a key role in the regency of Zoe for her son Constantine VII. The eunuch’s sister married Leo Phokas. Constantine’s prominence ended when Romanos Lekapenos seized power.

50. Constantine the proedros (twelfth century?) See: Buckton and Hetherington (2006). Constantine the proedros is known from a pendant which has been dated to the twelfth century. The pendant was produced for him, and he is shown on it at the feet of Christ. Since he is beardless he has been identified as a eunuch.

51. Constantine the Saracen (eleventh century) See: PBW, Konstantinos 115. This eunuch was a loyal servant of Constantine IX Monomachos, and had served him before he became emperor. He was of Arab descent, and was grand hetaireiarch and strategos autokrator. He played a leading military role, and was active in Armenia, against the rebel Leo Tornikios and against the Pechenegs. He may be the same Constantine who led a campaign against the Pechenegs in 1047 (PBW, Konstantinos 5002). This Constantine is described as a eunuch, praipositos and leader of the Roman forces.

52. Cosmas (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Cosmas 2, p. 326; Scholten (1995), 240–1. Together with a fellow chamberlain Michael, Cosmas allowed the general Jordanes to examine the imperial apartments.

53. Cosmas (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Cosmas 3, pp. 326–7. This eunuch held the posts of spatharius and praepositus sacri cubiculi (the latter by 488/491). In 481 he was sent by the emperor Zeno to Peter the Iberian and Isaiah to invite them to Constantinople. In 487 he was sent to Alexandria by Zeno in order to establish calm after religious tension.

142

APPENDI X 2

54. Damianos (ninth century) See: PBE, Damianos 2; PMBZ 1212. This eunuch was a Slav. He was patrikios and parakoimomenos under Michael III. He was an ally of Bardas, but fell out with him and was sacked. He was made a monk, and kept at the monastery of St Mamas. He is credited with building the monastery Ta Damianou.

55. Damianos (tenth century) This eunuch was droungarios of the watch during the regency of Zoe for her son Constantine VII.

56. Daniel (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Danielius 3, p. 345; Scholten (1995), 250. This eunuch (a chamberlain) was sent by Basiliscus to ask Daniel the Stylite to pray for him. He was also the confidant of the lovers the empress Zenonis and Armatus.

57. Demetrios (eleventh to twelfth centuries) See: Mullett (2002), esp. 178–80. It is known that Theophylact of Ochrid had a brother who was a eunuch, and it has been argued that his brother Demetrios is the eunuch brother. Theophylact wrote his In Defence of Eunuchs for his eunuch brother. Demetrios had connections at the imperial court. He carried letters for Theophylact. He probably died in 1107.

58. Deuterius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Deuterius 1, p. 356; Scholten (1995), 220. The chief chamberlain (so perhaps a eunuch) of Honorius, he was tried and executed after the death of Stilicho, whom he had supported.

59. Dorotheus (third to fourth centuries) See PLRE 1, Dorotheus 1, p. 249; Guyot (1980), 195. He was a born eunuch. He was put in charge of purple dye works at Tyre by Diocletian. He became a priest at Antioch under bishop Cyril.

143

APPENDI X 2

60. Eleutherios (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Eleutherius, pp. 435–6. This eunuch was a koubikoularios, and was appointed exarch of Italy by Heraclius. In 619 he rebelled, but he was killed by his own soldiers and his head was despatched to Heraclius.

61. Elijah (fifth century) This eunuch was a tribune, and had been steward of the empress Eudocia (wife of Theodosius II). He lived in the Holy Land and assisted Peter the Iberian, by whom he had been healed. He was a Monophysite.

62. Elissaios (eighth century) See: PBE, Elissaios 1; PMBZ 1509. A eunuch and a notary. After the betrothal of Charlemagne’s daughter Rotrud to Constantine VI in 782, Elissaios was charged with teaching Greek and Byzantine customs to Rotrud at the Frankish court.

63. Ergodotes (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ergodotes (Anonymous 143). He was one of the most trustworthy eunuchs of Constantine VIII, though his career continued under Michael IV. He was chosen for special missions, such as fetching Constantine Dalassenos.

64. Eugenius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Eugenius 4, p. 292; Guyot (1980), 195; Scholten (1995), 246. A eunuch in the imperial palace, he was expelled by Valens and then supported the usurper Procopius with his wealth. The PLRE assumes that he was a cubicularius.

65. Euphratas (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Euphratas 2, p. 465. This eunuch was from Abasgia, and became chief of the palace eunuchs under Justinian I. He had a nephew.

66. Eupraxius (sixth century) See: PLRE 2, Eupraxius, p. 426. He was one of the eunuchs of the imperial bedchamber. He supported Severus of Antioch when he was in Constantinople. He was a Monophysite. 144

APPENDI X 2

67. Eusebius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Eusebius 11, pp. 302–3; Dunlap (1924), 260–70; Guyot (1980), 199–201; Scholten (1995), 212–13. He was prominent throughout the reign of Constantius II as the emperor’s praepositus sacri cubiculi, and was viewed as very powerful. He was a formidable opponent of the emperor’s enemies, irrespective of whether they were religious or political. According to Ammianus Marcellinus he had a particular grudge against the general Ursicinus, who had refused to give Eusebius his house in Antioch. He was executed under Julian.

68. Eusebius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Eusebius 9, p. 429; Scholten (1995), 221. He succeeded Terentius as praepositus sacri cubiculi of Honorius in 409. He was very powerful at Ravenna, but became the victim of a plot of Allobichus and was clubbed to death before Honorius.

69. Eustathios (tenth century) He was one of the eunuchs of the imperial bedchamber, and in about 920 he was strategos of Calabria, when he agreed a treaty with the Arabs.

70. Eustathios Kyminianos (eleventh to twelfth centuries) This eunuch was the trusted droungarios of the fleet under Alexios I Komnenos, promoted to this position from the office of kanikleios. In the absence of Alexios he had a role to play in the defence of Constantinople.

71. Eustratios (eleventh century) He was made grand hetaireiarch by Constantine VIII at the start of his reign. He may have been a eunuch as he is associated with Constantine’s government of eunuchs.

72. Eustratios Garidas (eleventh century) See: PBW, Eustratios 11. This eunuch was a monk, and became patriarch of Constantinople in 1081. The emperor Alexios I Komnenos removed him from office in 1084. He had been close to Alexios’ mother Anna Dalassene prior to Alexios becoming emperor, and she had wanted to make him patriarch.

145

APPENDI X 2

73. Eutherius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Eutherius 1, pp. 314–15; Dunlap (1924), 270–1; Guyot (1980), 201–2; Scholten (1995), 214; Woods (1998). He was Julian’s praepositus sacri cubiculi in Gaul, though his career had begun under Constantine the Great. He went on missions to Constantius II for Julian. He eventually retired to Rome, and is thought to have been one of the oral sources of Ammianus Marcellinus for his history.

74. Eutropius (fourth century) See: PLRE 2, Eutropius 1, 440–44; ODB, 758; Dunlap (1924), 272–84; Long (1996); Scholten (1995), 223–7. One of the most famous eunuchs of the later Roman empire. He was already a trusted agent of Theodosius I, but it was under Arcadius that he attained the zenith of his power. He was praepositus sacri cubiculi, patricius, and was nominated consul for 399. He fell victim to the power games which he had played so well himself from 395. He was first exiled to Cyprus, then executed at Chalcedon. He undertook a successful military campaign against the Huns. He arranged the marriage of Arcadius to Eudoxia. He was friends with John Chrysostom.

75. Eutropius (sixth century) Eutropius was a eunuch who served the distinguished Juliana Anicia as her secretary. On her death he retired with a group of eunuchs to the Holy Land to embrace the monastic life. They settled near Jericho. He was godfather to the son of a local rich nobleman. He became infatuated with the boy.

76. Eutychios (eighth century) See: PBE, Eutychios 4; PMBZ 1870; ODB, 759–60. This eunuch was patrikios and exarch of Italy from about 727 to about 751.

77. Gabriel (fifth century) Gabriel was a eunuch by birth, from Cappadocia. He became a monk and was allowed by Euthymius to take a cell in his lavra. Under the patronage of the empress Eudocia he became a priest at the church of the Resurrection and abbot of the monastery of the church of St Stephen. He died at the age of eighty. He could speak and write Latin, Greek and Syriac.

146

APPENDI X 2

78. George (eleventh century) See: PBW, Georgios 106. This eunuch was the brother of John the orphanotrophos, Constantine nobelissimos and emperor Michael IV. He became protovestiarios during the reign of his brother. He was banished to his estates in Paphlagonia by the empress Zoe.

79. George Oinaiotes (twelfth to thirteenth centuries) George was one of the eunuch chamberlains influential with Alexios III Angelos. He may be the eunuch who is described as the emperor’s most trusted friend who was sent on embassy to Alexios Ivanko. He may be identical with George the barbarian.

80. George Pepagomenos (eleventh century) See: PLP 22357. This eunuch was megas ecclesiarches of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in 1326/7. He had a brother.

81. George Probatas (eleventh century) See: PBW, Georgios 107. This eunuch was sent on an embassy to the emir of Sicily in 1035, which he conducted successfully. In 1040 he headed the Byzantine army sent against Stephen (Voislav) the ruler of Serbia, but his forces were defeated and he barely escaped with his life.

82. Gorgonius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Gorgonius 3, p. 399; Guyot (1980), 206; Scholten (1995), 213–14. He was the praipositus sacri cubiculi of the Caesar Gallus, but avoided execution, unlike his master.

83. Gratissimus (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Gratissimus, p. 519; Scholten (1995), 240. He was praepositus under Leo I. He built a church dedicated to St Cyriacus, beyond Constantinople’s Golden Gate. When he retired from office he became a monk in the church’s monastery.

147

APPENDI X 2

84. Gregory (seventh century) See: PBE, Gregorios 149; PMBZ 2367. This eunuch was eparch of Constantinople in 652, at the time when Pope Martin was held captive in the city.

85. Heraclius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Heraclius 3, p. 541; Scholten (1995), 246. This chamberlain was very influential with Valentinian III. Together they killed the general Aetius in 454. However, in 455, both he and Valentinian were killed.

86. Hilarius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Hilarius 3, p. 434; Guyot (1980), 210; Scholten (1995), 245. This imperial eunuch received a letter from Pope Liberius in 357.

87. Hyacinthus (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Hyacinthus 2, p. 574; Scholten (1995), 247. A eunuch of Honoria, the sister of Valentinian III, he was sent by his mistress to seek the assistance of Attila the Hun. On his return from his mission he was tortured and executed.

88. Hylasius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Hylasius, p. 575; Scholten (1995), 250. This eunuch was a spatharius, and was sent as a messenger to Daniel the Stylite by Leo I.

89. Ignatios (ninth century) See: PBE, Ignatios 1; PMBZ 2666; ODB, 983–4. He was the son of emperor Michael I, and was castrated at the time of the overthrow of his father in 813. He was also made a monk (he took the name Ignatios at this time; he was originally called Niketas). His brother Theophylact was also castrated and made a monk (taking the name Eustratios). Ignatios was patriarch of Constantinople twice (847–858; 867–877), under Michael III and again under Basil I. He died in office.

90. Ignatios (ninth century) See: PMBZ 2672. This eunuch was a presbyter on the island of Aegina.

148

APPENDI X 2

91. Ignatios (ninth century) See: PBE, Ignatios 2; PMBZ 2675. This koitonites (so perhaps a eunuch) was on duty in the bedroom of Michael III on the night of the emperor’s murder in 867.

92. Ioannikios (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannikios 15001. This eunuch was a monk whom Anna Dalassene charged with companionship of her son Alexios Komnenos when on campaign. In 1078 he was found in Alexios’ tent by the usurper Nikephoros Basilakes and was questioned about the whereabouts of Alexios. Anna Komnene says that this eunuch was used as a peace envoy to Basilakes, but Nikephoros Bryennios asserts that it was Symeon the Sanctified.

93. Ioannikios (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries) See: PLP 93651. This eunuch was a clergyman.

94. John (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Ioannes 22, p. 599; Scholten (1995), 251; Kofsky (1997), 210–13; Horn (2006), esp. 68–73. He was a eunuch from Lazica. His pre-monastic name was Mithridates. He worked in the imperial palace in Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius II. John was the godfather of Peter the Iberian, and with his godson he fled to the Holy Land and they became monks in Jerusalem.

95. John (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Ioannes 53, p. 663. Together with his brother Theodore he was a cubicularius of Justinian I. They were Monophysites. Earlier they had served under Misael.

96. John (eighth century) See: PBE, Ioannes 14; PMBZ 3055. This eunuch served in the household of Eirene, and was sakellarios. In 781 he was put in command of the forces of Asia and defeated the Arabs at the battle of Melon. He was probably also imperial ostiarios in 787, logothete of the stratiotikon logothesion, and attended the second council of Nicaea (see PBE, Ioannes 18).

149

APPENDI X 2

97. John (ninth century) See: PBE, Ioannes 91; PMBZ 3321. He was praipositos (so perhaps a eunuch). On the morning following the death of Michael III, Basil I sent him to take the emperor’s widow Eudokia Dekapolitissa back to her parents.

98. John (tenth century) John the eunuch was a cleric who became a monk after being rebuked by Constantine VII for his bad behaviour. During the reign of Romanos II he gave up the monastic habit and served the emperor as a chamberlain. He became a monk again when Romanos died.

99. John (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannes 115. This eunuch was a leading official under Constantine IX Monomachos, replacing Constantine Leichoudes as logothete in 1050. He became proedros and parakoimomenos. He fell from power when the empress Theodora became sole ruler in 1055.

100. John (twelfth century) This eunuch features in the typikon of John II Komnenos for the Pantokrator monastery as one of those whose memory was to be commemorated. He is identified as a mystikos.

101. John (fourteenth century) See: PLP 8597. This eunuch was megas doux of Trebizond from 1332–1344. He founded the monastery of the Saviour of the Pharos. He died in 1344 in Limnia.

102. John Angourios (ninth century) See: PBE, Ioannes 447; PMBZ 3322. This eunuch was patrikios and sakellarios, c. 867–873. He was the addressee of several letters of Photios.

103. John Ionopolites (twelfth to thirteenth centuries) John was a leading eunuch under Alexios III Angelos. He was parakoimomenos, and undertook military tasks.

150

APPENDI X 2

104. John Kallikrenites (fourteenth to fifteenth centuries) See: PLP 10370. This eunuch was a servant/intimate (oikeios) of the empress Helena Dragaš, the wife of Manuel II Palaiologos. Gaul (2002), 200, suggests that he might have been the nephew of the eunuch Michael Kallikrenites.

105. John the Faster (eleventh to twelfth centuries) This eunuch was a prominent monk and was recognised as a saint. He had been castrated due to ill health. He became abbot of the Petra monastery in Constantinople. He received benefactions from Alexios I Komnenos.

106. John of Heraclea (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries) See: PLP 8609; Laurent (1930) and (1934). John was the maternal uncle of the famous Nikephoros Gregoras. He was born in 1249, and died in 1328. Nikephoros asserts that his uncle was made a eunuch as a child due to ill health. He served the empress Theodora Palaiologina at the imperial court but embraced the religious life due to the influence of her spiritual father John. He became bishop of Nicomedia in 1283, then archbishop of Heraclea (1295–1328).

107. John the orphanotropohos (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannes 68; ODB, 1070; Janin (1931); Magdalino (1998), 145. John is one of the most famous Byzantine eunuchs. He was from Paphlagonia, and engineered for his brother Michael and his nephew Michael to become emperors through association with the empress Zoe. He was praipositos under Romanos III Argyros, and also orphanotrophos. Skylitzes asserts that John had served Romanos before he became emperor, though Psellos says he was one of the eunuchs of Basil II. He was also a monk, and wanted to be patriarch of Constantinople. He fell from power when his nephew and brother Constantine turned against him. He was banished to the monastery of Monobata. Later Constantine IX Monomachos moved him to Mitylene on Lesbos and had him blinded, and he died soon after that in 1043.

108. John the Philosopher (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannes 114. He was one of the empress Zoe’s eunuchs of the bedchamber, and held the title of patrikios. He led a party against a group of Pechenegs at Katasyrtai at night, and beheaded them all. ‘Philosophos’ may have been a family name.

151

APPENDI X 2

109. John the protovestiarios (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannes 64. This eunuch was protovestiarios under Nikephoros III Botaneiates, and had served Nikephoros before he became emperor. He besieged Nicaea in 1080, but the Turks repelled him. John was saved by George Palaiologos, and in gratitude the eunuch promised to adopt him, but he subsequently turned against his saviour.

110. John of Side (eleventh century) See: PBW, Ioannes 102; Dumitrescu (1987). This eunuch was a monk and archbishop of Side, but also was a leading official at the imperial court. He served Michael VII Doukas but was supplanted by the eunuch Nikephoritzes. John returned to prominence under Nikephoros III Botaneiates. He was hypertimos and protoproedros of the protosynkelloi. He was still metropolitan of Side in 1094 when he attended a synod in Constantinople. He may have been the patron of a copy of the homilies of John Chrysostom (Coislin 79).

111. Joseph Bringas (tenth century) See: ODB, 325–6; Magdalino (1998), 144–5; Markopoulos (2004). Bringas was a eunuch from Paphlagonia. He came to prominence under Constantine VII, when he was patrikios, praipositos, sakellarios and droungarios of the fleet. Under Romanos II he replaced Basil Lekapenos as parakoimomenos and was the leading figure in the government. However he was ousted under Nikephoros II Phokas and exiled to Paphlagonia and then to Pythia, to the monastery of Asekretis. The eleventh-century emperor Michael VI was a descendant.

112. Kalokyros (ninth century) He was a koitonites (so perhaps a eunuch) of Leo VI, and overheard the details of a plot against the emperor.

113. Karvas (thirteenth century) See: PLP 11145. This eunuch was a servant of Andronikos II Palaiologos. He was killed when he attempted to impede the flight of Michael Komnenos Angelos, who had set fire to the house in which he was under arrest.

114. Lauricius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Lauricius, 659–60; Scholten (1995), 221–2.

152

APPENDI X 2

He was a chamberlain at Ravenna, where he built a church to the martyr Laurentius, and dedicated mosaics in the monastery of Protasius and Gervasius.

115. Lausus (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Lausus 1, p. 660; Scholten (1995), 230–1. He was praepositus under Theodosius II, and was the dedicatee of Palladius’ Lausiac History.

116. Leo (ninth century) See: PBE, Leo 14; PMBZ 4408. This eunuch hailed from Sinope. He was sakellarios and patrikios in 802, and assisted in the fall of Eirene, even though he had prospered under her. He is rebuked for his greed by Theophanes. He is surnamed Klokas by Kedrenos.

117. Leo (ninth century) See: PMBZ 4414. Bishop of Nicaea in Thrace, this eunuch was martyred by the Bulgars in 815.

118. Leo Kydoniates (eleventh century) See: PBW, Leon 15004. This eunuch was a servant of Eudokia Makrembolitissa, wife of Constantine X Doukas and Romanos IV Diogenes. Leo persuaded her not to pursue marriage to Nikephoros III Botaneiates.

119. Leo Nikerites (eleventh to twelfth centuries) See: PBW, Leon 15008. Under Alexios I Komnenos this eunuch fulfilled a military role, and was a trusted official. In 1086 he escorted Pechenegs to Constantinople. He was governor of the Peloponnese, doux of Paristrion and also doux of Cyprus. He had a relative whom he was very attached to, but this relative died young. It seems that he was a bibliophile.

120. Leo the sakellarios (tenth century) See: ODB, 1216–17; Spatharakis (1976), 7–14. Leo was the patron of the so-called Leo Bible. This manuscript was intended for the monastery of St Nicholas. A frontispiece depicts Leo offering the Bible to the Theotokos. He is identified as a eunuch from his appearance (he has no beard) and the details of his career: he was patrikios, praipositos and sakellarios. He

153

APPENDI X 2

had a brother Constantine, who was protospatharios, also depicted in the Bible. Constantine was the founder of the monastery of St Nicholas.

121. Leontakios (eleventh century) See: PBW, Leontakios 5000; Polemis (1968), 64. This eunuch was the paidagogos of Michael Doukas, the grandson of Caesar John Doukas. He helped him escape from a fortress in which he was being held hostage by Roussel of Bailleul, the Norman mercenary. Michael’s brother John was also a hostage at the same time, and had a eunuch tutor too, but he is not named (PBW, Anonymus 5010).

122. Leontios (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Leontius 29, p. 780. This Syrian was a leading eunuch at the court of Phokas. He was sakellarios, and also had a military role. He was executed on the accession of Heraclius.

123. Leontios (ninth century) See: PMBZ 4589. This eunuch was a monk, and became abbot of the Stoudite monastery in Constantinople in the early ninth century, after the emperor Leo V had exiled Theodore of Stoudios.

124. Leontius (fourth century) Leontius was a presbyter in Antioch. He castrated himself as he associated with a woman called Eustolia, and he wanted to demonstrate the purity of their relationship. He was defrocked, but subsequently was made bishop of Antioch by Constantius II.

125. Macedonius (fifth to sixth centuries) He was patriarch of Constantinople (496–511). He was anti-Monophysite. Apparently, when he was accused of indecent acts with boys, it emerged that he had been castrated.

126. Macrobius (fifth or sixth century) See: PLRE 2, Macrobius 4, 699; Guyot (1980), 214; Scholten (1995), 251. A eunuch of the palatium, he is known from a funerary inscription at Aquileia. He died aged 70.

154

APPENDI X 2

127. Mamalos (eighth century) See: PBE, Mamalos 1; PMBZ 4686. He held the office of primikerios. He went on a mission to the court of Charlemagne in 782 concerning the betrothal of Charlemagne’s daughter Rotrud to Eirene’s son Constantine VI. He was accompanied on the mission by Elissaios the notary and Konstaes the sakellarios (PMBZ 3690). The PBE says Mamalos ‘was probably a highly placed and trusted member of the eunuch staff of the palace’. The PMBZ also asserts he was probably a eunuch.

128. Mamas (sixth century) See: PLRE 2, Mamas 2, pp. 704–5; Scholten (1995), 242. He became a chamberlain under Anastasius I, and rose to become praepositus. He was from Armenia, and was castrated as a child due to illness. He was the nephew (or cousin) of the monk Sophronius.

129. Manuel (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Manuel 3, p. 811; PMBZ 4697. This eunuch was an Armenian. He was a commander in Egypt in 645/6, whose objective was to reclaim it from the Arabs. He managed to retake Alexandria, but lost it again and was killed in conflict with the Arabs.

130. Manuel (eleventh century) See: PBW, Manuel 103. He was droungarios of the watch, and played a key part in the proclamation of Theodora as sole ruler in 1055. It is probable that he was a eunuch.

131. Mardonius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Mardonius 1, p. 558; Guyot (1980), 215; Scholten (1995), 245. This ‘Scythian’ eunuch was the tutor of Julian, and had previously taught Julian’s mother Basilina.

132. Mardonius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Mardonius 2, p. 558; Guyot (1980), 215; Scholten (1995), 217. A leading eunuch of the imperial household, he was prominent under both Valens and Arcadius. The relic of the head of John the Baptist was kept on his own property near Chalcedon.

155

APPENDI X 2

133. Margarites (sixth to seventh centuries) See: PLRE 3, Margarites, p. 826. This leading eunuch of the imperial household attended the emperor Maurice at his wedding to Constantina in 582.

134. Michael (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Michael 1, p. 762. Together with a fellow chamberlain, Cosmas, Michael allowed the general Jordanes to examine the imperial apartments.

135. Michael (tenth century) This Michael was a koitonites (and so perhaps a eunuch) of Romanos II. In 960 he went on the expedition to Crete as overseer of the fleet.

136. Michael (eleventh to twelfth centuries) See: PBW, Michael 15011. This eunuch was in the retinue of the empress Eirene Doukaina, and became tutor to Gregory Gabras, who was engaged to one of the daughters of Alexios I Komnenos and Eirene. Perhaps he is to be identified with the eunuch Michael who was doctor to Alexios.

137. Michael Kallikrenites (fourteenth century) See: PLP 10371. This eunuch was head chamberlain under Andronikos II Palaiologos. He held the titles of pansebastos and sebastos, and was an intimate (oikeios) of the emperor. He was sent on special missions, such as to Andronikos III Palaiologos during the civil war of the 1320s. Gaul (2002), 200, suggests that he might have been the uncle of the eunuch John Kallikrenites.

138. Michael Spondyles (eleventh century) See: PBW, Michael 108. In the reign of Constantine VIII this eunuch became doux of Antioch. He was defeated by the Arabs in 1027. He was relieved of his command by Romanos III Argyros. In 1038 he was sent on campaign to Sicily with George Maniakes.

139. Michael the protovestiarios (tenth century) Michael was protovestiarios during the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas, and became chamberlain before the emperor’s death. His brother was the eunuch Niketas the 156

APPENDI X 2

patrikios and droungarios of the fleet. He may be the trusted servant Michael who was in Nikephoros’ service before he became emperor.

140. Misael (sixth century) See: PLRE 2, Misael, pp. 763–4, and PLRE 3, Misael, pp. 892–3. This cubicularius (possibly praepositus sacri cubiculi) was a Monophysite. Letters of Severus of Antioch thanked him for his support of the church of Antioch, and he was the dedicatee of lives of Peter the Iberian, Isaias and Theodorus. He was exiled to Serdica in the aftermath of the plot of Amantius against Justin I. He then embarked on a church career, which he had already wanted to embrace. He was buried at a village called Sema.

141. Mousikos (ninth century) This eunuch was a slave of Stylianos Zaoutzes during the reign of Leo VI. He was involved in the affair of transferring the Bulgarian markets from Constantinople to Thessalonike, and other acts of corruption. Leo eventually had him made a monk at Stoudios.

142. Narses (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Narses 1, pp. 912–18; ODB, 1438; Dunlap (1924), 284–99; Fauber (1990). This eunuch cubicularius from Persarmenia had a very distinguished career during the reign of Justinian I, and beyond. He served as sacellarius, spatharius, and praepositus sacri cubiculi. He played a part in the suppression of the Nika riot, and also in the attempt to reinstall Theodosius as bishop of Alexandria. He is most famous for his military role in Italy, emerging as the conqueror of the Goths. He died in Rome during the reign of Justin II. He was buried in his monastery in Bithynia.

143. Narses (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Narses 4, pp. 930–1. He was spatharius and sacellarius under Justin II and Sophia. He was known for his building activities, including the monastery of the Katharoi. It may be he who was sent as an envoy to the Avars by Tiberius.

144. Narses (sixth to seventh centuries) See: PLRE 3, Narses 11, pp. 935–6. He was born at Smyrna, and was the son of Thomas. He became head of the imperial household (so possibly praepositus sacri cubiculi), and later was selected by the emperor to be bishop of Ascalon. 157

APPENDI X 2

145. Neophytos (thirteenth century) See: PLP 20162. This eunuch was a monk, and in 1294 was part of a projected embassy led by Athanasios the patriarch of Alexandria to the kings of Cyprus and Armenia to arrange a marriage for Andronikos II Palaiologos’ son Michael IX Palaiologos.

146. Nicholas (ninth century) See: PBE, Nikolaos 84; PMBZ 5594. This eunuch served the empress Theodora. He is said to have ordered the killing of thousands of Arab prisoners.

147. Nicholas (tenth century) This eunuch was one of John I Tzimiskes’ personal servants. He held the title of patrikios, and was made commander in chief of the army. He had much military experience, and won a victory over the Arabs.

148. Nicholas (eleventh century) See: PBW, Nikolaos 101. This eunuch was a leading minister under Constantine VIII. He was appointed domestic of the scholai and parakoimomenos, and held the title of proedros. He was also domestic of the scholai under Zoe and Theodora in 1042, and under Constantine IX Monomachos. The emperor removed him from office after a failed campaign against Aplesphares the emir of Dvin.

149. Nicholas (eleventh century) See: PBW, Nikolaos 125. He was a eunuch in the household of the widow Kale Pakouriane. In her will of 1089 he was left a horse called Daimonitzes, as well as a pound of gold.

150. Nikephoritzes (eleventh century) See: PBW, Nikephoros 63; ODB, 1475; Lemerle (1977), 300–2; Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), esp. 51–7; Angold (1997), 121–4. Nikephoritzes was one of the last famous powerful court eunuchs. He was from the Boukellarion theme, and was especially prominent under Michael VII Doukas, replacing the eunuch John of Side as the key minister. He was made doux of Antioch by Constantine X Doukas as punishment for having slandered the empress Eudokia Makrembolitissa, but was dismissed again and imprisoned in Antioch. He was freed under Romanos IV Diogenes and became krites of the Peloponnese and Hellas. He was logothete of the drome under Michael VII. He held the title 158

APPENDI X 2

of sebastophoros. He was gifted with the monastery of Hebdomon, and owned a granary at Raidestos. When Michael VII abdicated in 1078, Nikephoritzes was exiled by Nikephoros III Botaneiates to one of the Princes’ islands, and died under torture.

151. Nikephoros (tenth century) Nikephoros came from the village of Basileion in the Boukellarion theme. His parents Eustathios and Maria had him castrated as a child. He was sent to Constantinople, where he was educated, and he lived in the house of the magistros Moselle. He was enrolled amongst the imperial clergy and accompanied an expedition to Sicily. He then became bishop of Miletos. On retirement he became a monk on Mt Latros, but moved on to Mt Mykale.

152. Nikephoros (eleventh century) See: PBW, Nikephoros 104. This eunuch was protovestiarios under Constantine VIII. He attained the title of proedros. In the reign of Michael IV he lived in the Boukellarion theme, and became a monk in the monastery of St John Stoudios after surviving an earthquake.

153. Nikephoros (eleventh century) See: PBW, Nikephoros 108. Initially a priest, this eunuch gave up his vocation for a secular career. He served Constantine IX Monomachos before he became emperor. During Constantine’s reign he was stratopedarch and strategos autokrator and held the title of raiktor. In 1049 he was defeated in battle against the Pechenegs.

154. Nikephoros (twelfth century) This eunuch was prominent under Andronikos I Komnenos. He was parakoimomenos and commanded a division of the army.

155. Niketas (eighth century) See: PBE, Niketas 1; PMBZ 5404. Niketas was a eunuch of Slavic origin. He worked in the women’s quarters, but became a priest at the church of Holy Apostles and archon of the monasteries. He then became patriarch of Constantinople in 766 under Constantine V. He was an iconoclast. He died in office in 780.

159

APPENDI X 2

156. Niketas (ninth century) See: PMBZ 5479. This eunuch held the office of epi tes trapezes, and lived in the reign of Theophilos. He built a bath at the Forum of the Bull in Constantinople.

157. Niketas (tenth century) The emperor Nikephoros II Phokas was very attached to the eunuch Niketas, who was a patrikios. He was also droungarios of the fleet, and was captured by Saracens in Sicily. Sent to Africa as a prisoner, he was eventually ransomed. He had a brother called Michael, who was also an official of Nikephoros Phokas, and probably a eunuch too.

158. Niketas (twelfth century) This eunuch was bishop of Chonai in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos.

159. Niketas Helladikos (tenth century) Niketas was protovestiarios under Leo VI and papias under Romanos I Lekapenos, so perhaps he was a eunuch.

160. Niketas Xylinites (eleventh century) See: PBW, Niketas 107. Logothete of the drome, Niketas was instrumental in the accession of Theodora to sole power in 1055. He was also amongst those who chose her successor. He may have been a eunuch, as he is associated with the eunuch government of Theodora.

161. Niketas the patrikios (eighth to ninth centuries) See: PBE, Niketas 160; PMBZ 5424. He was born in 761 or 762, and hailed from Paphlagonia. His parents had him castrated. He served under the empress Eirene, and was patrikios and strategos of Sicily. He became a monk, and was an iconophile. He died in 836.

162. Niketas of Mistheia (eleventh century) See: PBW, Niketas 102. Under Romanos III Argyros this eunuch became doux of Antioch. He was also patrikios and raiktor.

160

APPENDI X 2

163. Niketas of Pisidia (eleventh century) See: PBW, Niketas 101. This eunuch was from Pisidia. Under Constantine VIII he became doux of Iberia.

164. Olympios (seventh century) See: PBE, Olympios 1; PMBZ 5650; ODB, 1524–5. He was koubikoularios and exarch of Italy under Constans II (649). He fought the Arabs in Sicily, but was defeated. He fell ill and died. The PMBZ thinks he was probably a eunuch, because he was a koubikoularios.

165. Orestes (eleventh century) He is described as one of the most faithful eunuchs of Basil II. He was sent to campaign in Sicily by the emperor. He held the title of protospatharios. In the reign of Romanos III Argyros he accused Constantine Diogenes of preparing a plot. He was also relieved of his command in the west.

166. Paul (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Paulus 25, pp. 852–3. A slave of Zeno, he became his sacellarius. He was joint-commander of a fleet sent against Illus. The PLRE asserts ‘The post of sacellarius was held only by eunuchs’.

167. Paul (ninth century) See: PBE, Paulos 24; PMBZ 5869. He was a koitonites, so probably a eunuch. He was sent by Basil I to bury Michael III. He took the body to Chrysopolis and buried it in a monastery there.

168. Peter (tenth century) This eunuch is often called Peter Phokas, but he was in reality one of the slaves of the Phokas family. He played an active military role. He was stratopedarch in Cilicia. He assisted in the recapture of Antioch under Nikephoros II Phokas. He fought against the Rus under John I Tzimiskes. He continued to serve under Basil II, and fell in battle against Bardas Skleros.

169. Pharismanius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Pharismanius 1, p. 872; Scholten (1995), 249. He is described as a eunuch of the palace in a letter to him from Isidore of Pelusium, who castigated him for his greed. 161

APPENDI X 2

170. Philagrios (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Philagrius 3, p. 1018; PMBZ 6124. He was koubikoularios and sakellarios under Heraclius and Constantine III. He revealed to the emperor the existence of a fund established by Heraclius for the empress Martina. When Constantine died Martina had Philagrios tonsured and banished to Septem. He was, however, recalled. He had great popularity in Constantinople.

171. Philaretos (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Philaretus 1, p. 1019. He was koubikoularios and chartoularios, and together with Synetos he escorted Heraclius’ daughter Epiphania to Hagia Sophia at the time of her coronation in 612. He later carried the emperor’s son Heraclius to the church at the time of his coronation.

172. Philialetes (fourteenth to fifteenth centuries) See: PLP 29822. This eunuch founded the church of the Theotokos Amolyntos in Constantinople, on land given to him by a protovestiaria who was the emperor’s aunt.

173. Philokales (tenth century) See: ODB 1656; McGeer (2000), 118–19; Svoronos (1994), 202–3. Philokales features in a Novel (existing in two versions) of Basil II. He is not named as a eunuch but his titles and offices suggest that he was: he was hebdomarios, then koitonites, then protovestiarios. He was originally a poor villager, but became illustrious and wealthy. He took possession of the entire village commune and made it into his own estate. Basil II reduced him to his original status.

174. Polyeuktos (tenth century) See: ODB, 1696. Born and raised in Constantinople, he was castrated by his parents. He became a monk, and was patriarch of Constantinople (956–970).

175. Probatius (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Probatius 2, p. 733; Guyot (1980), 224; Scholten (1995), 215. He was amongst the powerful court eunuchs whom the Arians cultivated in the reign of Jovian.

162

APPENDI X 2

176. Procopius (ninth century) He was protovestiarios (and so perhaps a eunuch) in the reign of Basil I. He was co-commander of Byzantine forces in Italy, but was killed by the Arabs when he was let down by the other commander, Leo Apostypes.

177. Pterygeonites (twelfth century) This eunuch was in the service of Manuel I Komnenos, then attended Manuel’s daughter Maria. He was persuaded by Andronikos Komnenos to poison Maria. He also oversaw the execution of Maria of Antioch.

178. Rentakios (ninth century) See: PBE, Rhendakios 1; PMBZ 6397. He was the protovestiarios (possibly parakoimomenos) (so probably a eunuch) of Michael III at the end of his reign. On the night of Michael’s murder in 867 Rentakios was not sleeping in the emperor’s bedroom.

179. Rhodanus (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Rhodanus, p. 764; Guyot (1980), 225; Scholten (1995), 215–16. He was a rich and powerful praipositus sacri cubiculi under Valentinian I. He was tried for treating unjustly a woman named Berenice, and executed for not recompensing her.

180. Rhodophyles (tenth century) He was a koubikoularios (so perhaps a eunuch) of Leo VI. He was on a mission to Sicily, carrying gold, when he had to stop in Thessalonike due to illness. He was captured and killed by Leo the Tripolite, who led the Arab siege of the city in 904.

181. Romanos Lekapenos (tenth century) He was the son of Stephen Lekapenos, and was castrated at the command of Constantine VII. He became patrikios and sebastophoros. John I Tzimiskes stayed in his house at the foot of Mt Olympos in Bithynia.

182. Romanos the Bulgar (tenth century) He was the son of Peter the Bulgar, and was a hostage in Constantinople. He was castrated at the command of the eunuch Joseph Bringas. He escaped from Constantinople, but later surrendered Skopje (which he was governor of) to Basil II. He was made patrikios, praipositos and strategos of Abydos. 163

APPENDI X 2

183. Sabas (eleventh century) See: Dumitrescu (1987). Sabas the monk is depicted in the manuscript of the homilies of John Chrysostom (Coislin 79), instructing the emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates. Since he is beardless it can be argued that he is a eunuch.

184. Samonas (ninth to tenth centuries) See: ODB, 1835–6; Janin (1935); Jenkins (1948); Rydén (1984); Tougher (1997b), esp. 197–201. Samonas was an Arab. He rose to prominence around 900 AD when he informed the emperor Leo VI of a plot against his life. He became a key agent of the regime, despite his attempt to flee to his homeland in 904. He was patrikios and parakoimomenos. He stood as godfather to Leo’s son Constantine VII. He was eventually eclipsed by the eunuch Constantine the Paphlagonian. Following an attempt to discredit his rival, Samonas was demoted and confined to a monastery.

185. Saturninus (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Saturninus 4, p. 980; Scholten (1995), 249. In 449 this eunuch, together with Dioscorus the Monophysite bishop of Alexandria, exiled Flavianus the bishop of Constantinople to Epipa.

186. Scholasticius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Scholasticius 1, p. 982; Scholten (1995), 247. He is described as comes and castrensis sacri palatii in a law of 422. He was at court in 431 when he was bribed on behalf of Cyril the bishop of Alexandria. He was mentioned honourably at the Council of Ephesus.

187. Scholasticus (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Scholasticus 1, p. 1117. One of the palace eunuchs, he headed an expedition against the Slavs in the reign of Justinian I.

188. Scholastikos (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Scholasticus 4, p. 1117. This palace eunuch escorted the empress Constantina (the widow of Maurice) and her daughters to Hagia Sophia to seek asylum.

164

APPENDI X 2

189. Scholastikios (ninth century) See: PBE, Scholastikios 6; PMBZ 6517. He was parakoimomenos and ostiarios (so probably a eunuch) during the reign of Theophilos.

190. Sergios (eleventh century) This eunuch is described as one of Basil II’s most intimate chamberlains. He was known as a good speaker, and persuaded the Bulgars in the fortress of Melnikos at Zagoria to surrender.

191. Sgouritzes (eleventh century) See: PBW, Sgouritzes (Anonymous 165). He was one of the empress Zoe’s personal eunuchs. Through him she attempted to bribe a doctor to poison John the orphanotrophos.

192. Sinoutis (tenth century) See: Tougher (1997b), 199–200. This eunuch was chartoularios of the drome under Leo VI, and served as an ambassador. He was charged with missions to Taron and Iberia, though only executed the one to Iberia. Perhaps he also went on an embassy to Baghdad, with Leo Choirosphaktes: Kolias (1939), 56.

193. Smaragdus (sixth to seventh centuries) See: PLRE 3, Smaragdus 2, pp. 1164–6. He served as chartularius sacri palatii and praepositus sacri palatii. He was also exarch of Italy twice. During his second term he dedicated a statue of the emperor Phokas at Rome.

194. Solomon (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Solomon 1, pp. 1167–77; ODB, 1925–6. He hailed from the eastern frontier, near Dara. He was an accidental eunuch, and had a distinguished military career. He came to prominence in particular in the aftermath of the reconquest of North Africa under Justinian I. He became the leading general there following the departure of Belisarius, and also became praetorian prefect. He built a monastery at Carthage. He was killed in 544 by the Moors, with whom he waged an ongoing struggle. He had a brother and three nephews.

165

APPENDI X 2

195. Solomon (tenth century) This eunuch was a chamberlain who acted as an ambassador to Spain and Saxony under Constantine VII. He met Liudprand in Venice, and they journeyed to Constantinople together. Solomon was escorting an envoy from Otto I.

196. Solomon (twelfth century) This eunuch was bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia in the reign of Manuel I Komnenos. He was executed by Kilidj Arslan.

197. Staurakios (eighth to ninth centuries) See: PBE, Staurakios 1; PMBZ 6880; ODB, 1945. He was one of the leading eunuchs under Eirene. In 782 he was patrikios and logothete of the drome. In 783 he campaigned against the Slavs in Greece. He sided with Eirene against Constantine VI. He vied with the eunuch Aetios for power under Eirene. He planned to seize power but died in 800.

198. Stephen (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Stephanus 19, p. 1187. He was the praepositus of the empress Sophia. He was a Monophysite but was forced to accept the creed of the Council of Chalcedon.

199. Stephen (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Stephanus 53, p. 1195. He was a prominent palace eunuch under Maurice, and tutor to the emperor’s sons.

200. Stephen (seventh century) See: PBE, Stephanos 4; PMBZ 6931; ODB, 1955. This eunuch was of Persian origin. He was a leading figure during the first reign of Justinian II, and held the office of sakellarios. He was burnt to death when Justinian was overthrown in 695.

201. Stephen (tenth century) This eunuch was patriarch of Constantinople from 925–927. He had previously been metropolitan of Amasea.

166

APPENDI X 2

202. Stephen (eleventh century) See: PBW, Stephanos 102. He was one of Zoe’s eunuchs of the bedchamber and hailed from Pergamum. In 1042 he was sent to fetch Constantine Monomachos to Constantinople to be emperor. In 1043 he was strategos autokrator and defeated George Maniakes in battle. He sent George’s head to Constantine IX, and was rewarded with a triumph in Constantinople. However, he was accused of plotting to overthrow the emperor and replace him with Leo the strategos of Melitene, so his estates were confiscated, and he was tonsured and exiled. He was also sebastophoros.

203. Stephen (eleventh century) See: PBW, Stephanos 144. This eunuch was a monk on Mt Galesion. Along with other eunuch monks he was removed from the monastery of the Resurrection and transferred to the monastery of the Saviour by Lazaros of Galesion. He died at the Saviour monastery.

204. Stephen/Symeon the Sanctified (eleventh to twelfth centuries) See: PBW, Symeon 130; Gautier (1980), 115–16; Morris (1995), esp. 279–80. Stephen the eunuch was megas droungarios. In 1078 under Nikephoros III Botaneiates he retired and became a monk, changing his name to Symeon. He refounded the monastery of Xenophontos on Mt Athos, and was abbot of the monastery. He may have rendered Alexios Komnenos diplomatic support in 1078, and he certainly had the support of Alexios when he was emperor in the face of opposition from other monks on the mountain. He founded a monastery for eunuchs at Thessalonike.

205. Stephen Doukas (tenth century) The son of Constantine Doukas, Stephen was castrated after his father’s failed coup of 913.

206. Symeon (eleventh century) See: PBW, Symeon 101. This eunuch was one of Constantine VIII’s leading ministers. He became droungarios of the watch under the emperor, and held the title of proedros. He was instrumental in Romanos Argyros being chosen as Constantine’s heir. Under Romanos III he was domestic of the scholai, and campaigned in the east. He may be identical with PBW, Symeon 102.

167

APPENDI X 2

207. Symeon the New Theologian/George (tenth to eleventh centuries) See: Magdalino (1998), 145. Symeon the monk was from Galate in Paphlagonia. As a child he was named George. He was sent to Constantinople for education and a career, under the care of his uncle, a koitonites (so probably a eunuch). George became a spatharokoubikoularios, but turned to the monastic life, perhaps at the time of the fall of the eunuch Joseph Bringas. He entered the monastery of Stoudios, where he had a strong bond with Symeon Eulabes. He transferred to the monastery of St Mamas, and became its abbot. He was a prolific writer, and was a controversial figure. Whether Symeon was a eunuch is debated.

208. Synesios (eighth century) See: PBE, Synesios 2; PMBZ 7217. This eunuch was sent on an embassy to the Franks in about 765. The embassy discussed the marriage of Leo, the son of Constantine V, to Gisela, the daughter of Pepin, as well as the issue of icons.

209. Synetos (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Synetus, p. 1214. He was castrensis sacri palatii, and together with Philaretos he escorted Heraclius’ daughter Epiphania to Hagia Sophia at the time of her coronation in 612.

210. Terentius (fifth century) See: PLRE 2, Terentius, p. 1059; Scholten (1995), 220. Together with the eunuch Arsacius, this eunuch undertook a special mission for the emperor Honorius in 408. Terentius was rewarded with promotion, to the position of praepositus sacri cubiculi. Following a military mutiny he was deprived of office and exiled to the East. He was replaced by Eusebius.

211. Theodore (sixth century) See: PLRE 3, Theodorus 3, pp. 1244–5; Scholten (1995), 251. Together with his brother John he was a cubicularius of Justinian I. He held the office of castrensis. Earlier the brothers had served under Misael. He was a Monophysite. He was buried near Misael at Sema.

168

APPENDI X 2

212. Theodore (seventh century) See: PLRE 3, Theodorus 164, pp. 1279–80. He was surnamed Trithyrios. He was sakellarios and general of the east under Heraclius. He is identified as a eunuch by Armenian sources. He was killed in 636, fighting the Arabs at Yarmuk.

213. Theodore (eighth century) See: PBE, Theodoros 13; PMBZ 7578. This eunuch was a patrikios under Eirene. He was strategos of Sicily, probably from 782–788. He defeated the rebel Elpidios. He also opposed the Franks, but was defeated.

214. Theodore (tenth century) See: Magdalino (1998), 144. This eunuch was a literary figure and the object of invectives by Constantine the Rhodian. Magdalino suggests that he may be identified with the Theodore who was the tutor of Constantine VII. This Theodore assisted the rise of Romanos Lekapenos, but was then exiled, together with his brother Symeon.

215. Theodore (eleventh century) See: PBW, Theodoros 105. This eunuch was domestic of the scholai of the east and was instrumental in Theodora becoming sole ruler in 1055. He was also a key figure in the appointment of her successor, Michael VI. He was made strategos autokrator by Michael VI and sent to oppose Isaac Komnenos. The eunuch was defeated but survived. He was also proedros.

216. Theodore Krateros (ninth century) See: PBE, Theodoros 67; PMBZ 7679. This eunuch existed during the reign of Theophilos. He reputedly managed to throw an Arab horseman in the hippodrome in Constantinople. He was one of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion. He was a priest before embarking on a secular career. He held the title of protospatharios.

217. Theodosios (fourteenth century) See: PLP 7176. This eunuch was a monk in Constantinople in the Myrelaion monastery in 1315.

169

APPENDI X 2

218. Theoktistos (eighth or ninth century) See: PMBZ 8045. This eunuch was a monk in Calabria.

219. Theoktistos (ninth century) See: PBE, Theoktistos 3; PMBZ 8050; ODB, 2056. He was an associate of the Amorian dynasty, from the reign of Michael II to that of Michael III. He was especially close to the empress Theodora. He was kanikleios and logothete of the drome. He led campaigns against the Arabs. He was murdered in 855 at the instigation of Theodora’s brother Bardas. Theophanes Continuatus says that he was a eunuch.

220. Theophanes (tenth century) See: ODB, 2061. Theophanes was protovestiarios and parakoimomenos under Romanos I Lekapenos, and held the title of patrikios. He played a key role in negotiating the peace treaty with the Bulgarians in 927. In 941 he defeated the Rus at sea, and was promoted parakoimomenos as a result. After the fall of Romanos he was involved in a plot to reinstate him as emperor, but this failed and he was exiled. His accomplices had included Gregory the protospatharios and pingernes and Thomas the primikerios.

221. Theophilus (fourth century) See: PLRE 1, Theophilus 3, p. 908; Guyot (1980), 228; Scholten (1995), 245. The emperor Julian supposedly put this eunuch in charge of the library in the temple of Hadrian in Antioch.

222. Theophylact (eighth to ninth centuries) See: PBE, Theophylaktos 109; PMBZ 8340. This eunuch was of a distinguished family, and worked at the imperial court. He attained the rank of protospatharios. He built a church and monastery, and was buried there. Theodore the Stoudite wrote his funeral epitaph.

223. Theophylact (ninth century) See: PBE, Theophylaktos 9; PMBZ 8336. He was the eldest son of Michael I, and was castrated by Leo V on the overthrow of Michael. He became a monk, taking the name Eustratios.

170

APPENDI X 2

224. Theophylact Lekapenos (tenth century) See: ODB, 2068. Theophylact was the son of the emperor Romanos I Lekapenos. He was patriarch of Constantinople from 933 to 956. He was known for his more secular enthusiasms, such as his horses. Some sources assert that he was a eunuch.

225. Thomas (twelfth century) See: PBW, Thomas 17004. This eunuch was from Mitylene on Lesbos. He became prominent at the court of Manuel I Komnenos, acting as an agent of the emperor, though he started his career in Constantinople as a blood-letter. He played a role in the exposure of the plot of Alexios Axouch in 1167, and he went on embassy to the Seljuk sultan Kilidj Arslan in 1175. He was eventually imprisoned in the Elephantine palace and died there.

226. Tigrius (fifth century) Tigrius the eunuch was a barbarian slave who was freed. He became a presbyter in Constantinople, and was a supporter of John Chrysostom.

227. Tzitas (twelfth century) This eunuch was assaulted by John Kantakouzenos in the reign of Alexios II Komnenos.

228. Urbicius (fifth to sixth centuries) See: PLRE 2, Urbicius, pp. 1188–90; Honigmann (1949); Scholten (1995), 237–9. He was a praepositus who had a very long career, serving seven emperors across the span of the fifth century, surviving until the reign of Anastasius. He was a benefactor of the monastery of Hypatius, and paid for Hypatius’ coffin. He embraced a religious life on his retirement after the death of Theodosius II.

229. Xeros (thirteenth century) See: PLP 20916. This eunuch is referred to in 1285.

171

NOTES

INTRODUCTION 1 Wilson (2002), 41–2. The cover of volume two of the report is adorned with an artist’s impression of what the gallus would have looked like. 2 Renault (1972). 3 Rice (1990). 4 See for instance Reed and Mayer (1999). Another fictional eunuch detective is Yashim, located in nineteenth-century Istanbul: Goodwin (2006). A more sinister eunuch of Istanbul is found in Dennis Wheatley’s The Eunuch of Stamboul of 1935, in the shape of Kazdim Hari Bekar, the chief of the secret police under Atatürk. The eunuch is depicted as having served in the harem, and plots to restore the sultanate. One of the people Wheatley dedicates the book to is his friend Norman Penzer, who wrote a book on the Ottoman harem: Penzer (1965). Penzer’s book was originally published in 1936. 5 Harris (2002). 6 Adam (1907). 7 Barthes, ed. (1974); Lonsdale, ed. (1970). The aged La Zambinella is depicted as a rather pathetic and repulsive character, while Bababalouk has both positive and negative attributes. He is depicted as loyal, intelligent and facilitating, but also as vain and a joke. Bababalouk ends up being hung by the caliph’s mother. For comment on Balzac’s Sarrasine and the issue of the castrati see for instance André (2006), 21–5. 8 Castrati are also the subject of Lucy Powell’s True or Falsetto?, which was performed at the Edinburgh Festival in 2002. 9 Bevington, ed. (2005). 10 Bush, ed. (1996). This example, however, raises the issue of terminology. Was Mr Horner pretending to be castrated or to be just impotent? The issue of terminology will be explored in Chapter 2. 11 See for instance Croutier (1989), 31 and 124. 12 The Guardian, Wednesday May 22 2002. The Leader is entitled ‘Catterick camp. A travesty of Yorkshire’s past’. 13 Hijras were also the subject of the 1991 BBC documentary Under the Sun: Eunuchs – India’s Third Gender. 14 Of course the fact that these eunuchs are also transvestites heightens the aspect of gender ambiguity, but it holds true for eunuchs generally. 15 This article was reprinted in extracts from The New York Times produced in association with The Observer, Sunday April 8 2007. Note also the identification of Taylor (2000), 10–11, with eunuchs due to the fact that he had had a vasectomy. 16 See for instance Gillard (2001). The male soprano Michael Maniaci is another example.

172

NOTES

17 Cited in Haldon (2002), 53. 18 Runciman (1929), 29–30. 19 Dunlap (1924), 161–324. The grand chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) of the later Roman empire has remained a topic of keen interest: see for instance Scholten (1995). Another notable early contribution to the serious study of Byzantine eunuchs is Diner (1938), 62–72. It should be noted that although the author is named as Helen Diner, she should be identified as Bertha Diener. The 1938 book is an English translation of one written in German and published in 1936. 20 His articles on eunuchs and their court offices and titles are reprinted in Guilland (1967) I, 165–380. 21 Hopkins (1963). This article reappeared, slightly revised, as a chapter in Hopkins (1978), 172–96. The court eunuchs of the later Roman empire in the fourth century AD also received some attention in Guyot (1980), 130–76. Guyot’s book was a survey of eunuchs as slaves and freedmen in Greco-Roman antiquity. 22 Ringrose (1994), (1996), (1999) and (2003). For other interest in the gender identity of Byzantine eunuchs see for instance Sidéris (2001); Tougher (1999b), (2004a), (2004b) and (2005). 23 Guilland (1943), (1967) I, 165–97; Ringrose (2003). 24 Tougher (2002b); Stavrakas (1978). The published abstracts for the Byzantine Studies Conference of 1978 indicate that Stavrakas (of the University of Chicago) was to speak on eunuchs of the middle Byzantine period and their social connections. Stavrakas was a doctoral student of W.E. Kaegi, and successfully completed a thesis on the Byzantine provincial elite. 25 Wells (2004). The one exception is Ringrose’s use of Marmon (1995), which examined eunuchs and sacred boundaries in Islamic society. 26 See especially Grayson (1995) and Patterson (1982), but also the remarks of Ayalon (1999), 13, and Kuefler (1996), 279 and n. 10. See my own comments in Tougher (2002b). Hopkins (1963), 63 also made some use of the comparative approach, noting that ‘Eunuchs, like Court Jews in German states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, served as scapegoats’. 27 Witness, for instance, the views of Patterson (1982), 314–31, and Stevenson (1995). 28 For the text see Oikonomidès (1972), 65–235. 29 For the text see Gautier (1980), 288–331. 30 Ringrose (2003), 29 and 61. 1 THE EUNUCH IN HISTORY 1 For recent surveys of the eunuch in history see Scholz (2001) and Cheney (1995). 2 E.g. Bullough (2002), 1–2. 3 See Gera (1997), esp. 146–8. It is possible that Hellanicus mixed up Atossa and Semiramis: 141. 4 Amm. Marc. 14.6.17; Claud., In Eutr. 1.339–42. 5 Grayson (1995). See also Deller (1999); Guyot (1980), 77–80. The presence of eunuchs in Assyria is, however, debated. This shall be discussed further in Chapter 2. 6 For a history of the eunuch in imperial China see Anderson (1990), and for a brief survey see Tsai (2002). For a more analytical consideration of Chinese eunuchs, in the Ming period specifically (AD 1368–1644), see Tsai (1996). 7 For example the report by Seth Faison in The New York Times, December 20, 1996. 8 Tsai (1996), 153–64. 9 See Grayson (1995), 89–91, and Deller (1999), 309–10. On the Hittite case see also Hawkins (2002). 10 For eunuchs in the Achaemenid empire see for instance Briant (2002), esp. 268–77 and 919–20; Llewellyn-Jones (2002); Guyot (1980), 80–91. 11 For some useful comment on eunuchs and Athens see Miller (1997), esp. 213–15.

173

NOTES

12 Hdt. 7.187; Plut., Them. 16.4. 13 Pl., Prt 314C. 14 Hdt. 8.104–6. See however the discussion in Hornblower (2003). The episode will be considered further in Chapter 2. 15 For Hellenistic eunuchs see Guyot (1980), 92–120. 16 Diod. Sic. 17.66. 17 Arr., Anab. 7.24.1–3. 18 Curt. 6.5.22–3. 19 Plut., Caes. 48–9. 20 Plut., Ant. 60. 21 Though other sources also refer to eunuchs under Mithridates, e.g. Plut., Luc. 17–18, and Pomp. 36; Amm. Marc. 16.7.9. 22 12.76–7; 12.108; 12.82; 12.107–8. 23 For eunuchs and Rome from the first to third centuries AD see Guyot (1980), 121–9. 24 Ann. 6.31. 25 E.g. Suet., Dom. 7; Amm. Marc. 18.4.5. 26 Silv. 3.4. 27 Plin., HN 7.39. 28 Tac., Ann. 12.66; Suet., Claud. 44. 29 Suet., Ner. 28; Cass. Dio 63.8. 30 Petron., Sat. 15.27. 31 Joseph, Vit. 429. 32 See Dionisotti (1982), 98 section 17, and 110. I would like to thank Mary Harlow for this reference. 33 See for example Hopkins (1978), 172–96; Guyot (1980), 130–76. This development will be considered in detail in Chapter 4. 34 See for example Dunlap (1924), 260–84. 35 For the cult in Rome see for example Beard (1994); Turcan (1996), 28–74. 36 For the cult of Cybele see Roller (1999). 37 See for example Lightfoot (2002). 38 See for example Caner (1997), Stevenson (2002) and Hester (2005). 39 Apol. 1.29. 40 Euseb., HE 6.8.1–3. 41 For Byzantine eunuchs see for instance Ringrose (2003) and the chapters by Gaul, Mullett, Sidéris and Tougher in Tougher, ed. (2002a). 42 For an edition of the text with French translation see Oikonomidès (1972), 80–235. The details on eunuch titles and offices are found at 124–35. 43 See for example Liud., De Leg. 63. 44 See for instance Ayalon (1999). 45 For eunuchs at the Ottoman court see for instance Peirce (1993), see index; Toledano (1984). 46 See Marmon (1995). 47 See for instance Johns (2002), 212–14, 243–4, 249–50, and also Birk (2005), esp. 19–21. 48 See for example Tuchel (1998), esp. 61–89; Kuefler (1996), 288–9; van Eickels (2004). 49 See for instance Barbier (1996), Rosselli (1992), esp. 32–55, and the late Elsa Scammell’s website All you would like to know about the Castrati…but not quite!! 50 For earlier eunuch singers see for instance Moran (2002) and Witt (2002). 51 For Balatri see especially Heriot (1975), 200–24. 52 See for instance Clapton (2004), 118. As recently as 2001 the pope was being urged to apologise for his predecessors sanctioning the castration of boys to serve in the Vatican choir: Carroll (2001).

174

NOTES

53 Alessandro Moreschi – The Last Castrato. Complete Vatican Recordings, Opal CD9823. 54 See Engelstein (1999); Millant (1908), 50–80. 55 See Nanda (1998); Jaffrey (1997). 56 See for instance the report on the BBC News website entitled ‘World: South Asia eunuchs turn prejudice into cash’, Friday 30 April 1999 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ world/south_asia/332173.stm). The story was also reported on the BBC’s Bombay Blush, and featured in The Guardian Guide, 17 July 1999. This small item is also notable for its completely erroneous cartoon of a hijra. 57 See for instance the following British examples: Dam (2003); Orr (2002); Popham (1999). 58 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3021875.stm 59 For comment on Modern Day Eunuchs see Cantacuzino (2000). 60 For these modern day motivations, especially sexual renunciation, see for instance Money (1998). 61 See for instance Balch and Taylor (2002), 220. 62 All the issues raised in this concluding paragraph will be explored at greater length in following chapters. 2 APPROACHING EUNUCHS 1 As observed for instance by Humana (1973), 7; Ayalon (1999), 5; Scholz (2001), vii. 2 2.19 (1781), ed. Womersley (1994), vol. 1, 684–5. This passage is often cited: see for example Grayson (1995), 85; Penzer (1965), 138. 3 See for instance Tougher (1999a). 4 Hall (1989), 157. See also Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1987), esp. 43–4, on the importance of Ctesias for the definition of the orient. For comment on Greek orientalism see Said (1995), 55–7. Said’s famous study does not, however, consider eunuchs. Greeks could also entertain positive perceptions of eunuchs, as will be discussed below. 5 See for instance Yeazell (2000); Grosrichard (1998). Marmon (1995), esp. 93–101, discusses the views of western travellers on Islamic eunuchs. 6 Penzer (1965), esp. 134–51. 7 Penzer (1965), 150. 8 Penzer (1965), 138. For some reaction to Penzer’s comments see Ayalon (1999), 37–8. 9 Penzer (1965), 140. 10 Tsai (1996), esp. 7–8, and (2002), 221. Western visitors to imperial China also provide information on Chinese eunuchs: see for example the famous account of Stent (1877), reproduced in part by Humana (1973), 125–53, and utilised by Anderson (1990), 307–11. Stent’s treatment of Chinese eunuchs has a hostile streak but challenges some preconceptions and concludes sympathetically. 11 Tsai (1996), 8–9. 12 For example the story about Leonardo DiCaprio getting into difficulties whilst climbing over a gate, entitled ‘Leonardo di Castrato’ in The Sun 1 February 2000, or the singer David Da’s concern not to be jokingly referred to as a castrato in the film Shrek 2, reported in Metro 13 July 2004, 8. 13 Popham (1999). 14 Penzer (1965), 150–1, though he thinks Ancillon is the pseudonym. Millant (1908), 4, thought he was the first to produce a general history of eunuchism and eunuchs. 15 See for example Tsai (1996), 140, who comments on the lack of attention eunuchs have received from Chinese historians. 16 Bowersock, Brown and Grabar, ed. (1999); Maas (2000). The omission of the former is also noted by Michael Whitby in Classical Review 50 (2000), 564–6. 17 Tarn (1948), vol. 2, 319–22, in an appendix entitled ‘Alexander’s attitude to sex’.

175

NOTES

18 For Bagoas see Guyot (1980), 190. 19 Badian (1958). There are still doubters however, as noted by Bosworth (1988), 99 n. 218. Despite arguing for the existence of Bagoas, Badian is not much concerned with the eunuch himself. 20 Gay Times 315, December 2004, 79, and Gay Times 321, June 2005, 90 and 92. Notoriously Oliver Stone released a version of the film on DVD which removed the homosexual elements of the original cut. However, he released on DVD in 2007 Alexander, Revisited – The Final Cut, which restored Bagoas’ story (clearly much indebted to Mary Renault’s The Persian Boy). Not only do we see Bagoas getting into bed with Alexander and beginning to make love with him, we see the introduction of Bagoas to Alexander in Babylon, by what appears to be a chief eunuch. This scene indicates that Bagoas was a eunuch, not made clear in earlier versions of the film. Indeed the Persian practice of castrating boys for the purpose of lust is explicitly referred to in the scene where Aristotle teaches the Macedonian youths, thus providing the key to Bagoas’ story. Bagoas also gets a deathbed conversation with the dying Alexander, and the eunuch’s fate and relationship with Alexander is reflected upon by the old Ptolemy. Notably the homosexual dimension to the murder of Philip is also made clearer in this version of the film. 21 Ancillon dedicated his work to Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), author of the famous Dictionnaire historique et critique. 22 For comment on the treatise see for instance Grosrichard (1998), 150–62; Finucci (2003), 262 and 278. Barbier (1996), 152, describes Ancillon as ‘a typical representative of the austere and moralising fringe of his time’. 23 For a detailed examination of the marriage of the castrato Bartolomeo Sorlisi to Dorothea Lichtwer in Germany in 1667 see Frandsen (2005). Another castrato who got married is Tenducci, who wed an Irish woman called Dora Maunsell in 1766: Heriot (1975), 186–9. 24 Presumably this is a reference to Nicolo Grimaldi: see for instance Heriot (1975), 123–9; Barbier (1996), 181–2. 25 Ancillon (1707), 8–9: ‘L’on peut dire qu’il est des Eunuques comme des Bâtards, qu’ils sont ordinairement mauvais, mais qu’il s’en trouve quelque fois de bons’. Samber (1718), 10, renders this ‘one may say of Eunuchs the same that is usually said of Bastards, that for the most part they are very bad, but that sometimes we may chance to find one that may prove good for something’. Samber (1718), 30–41, is certainly very keen on the singing of the castrati. He notes that he heard castrati when he was in Rome in 1705 and 1706 (he was at the English College at Rome at the time). He names Pasqualini, Pauluccio (whom he says he is on intimate terms with) and Jeronimo, and says that Niccolini is ‘the best Eunuch Actor in the World’. 26 Humana (1973), 8. 27 Millant (1908), 4–5. 28 Kuefler (1996), 293 n. 3, notes other works in French on eunuchs contemporary with the study of Millant. 29 Humana (1973), 9. 30 See for example Kuefler (1996), 294 n. 11. 31 Scholz (2001), vii. 32 Scholz (2001), 291–7. 33 Griffin (2001), 36. 34 The subject of castration, which overlaps with that of eunuchs but which is not coterminus with it, shall be explored in Chapter 3. 35 Kuefler (1996), esp. 279. 36 Tuchel (1998). Whether there is a deliberate avoidance of the word ‘eunuch’ is a question that springs to mind. Perhaps, however, the western preoccupation of these studies simply made ‘castration’ the more relevant term.

176

NOTES

37 Cheney (1995), vii-viii and 192–202. For psychiatric interest in castration, as well as self-mutilation, see Favazza (1996), esp. 176–219. 38 For comment on the book see Griffin (2001), 37–40. 39 Taylor (2000), 1 and 10. 40 Dunlap (1924), 161–301; Guilland (1967) I, 165–380; Scholten (1995). 41 For example Runciman (1929), 29–30; Diner (1938), 62–72. 42 Hopkins (1963). This serious approach to eunuchs is echoed by Coser (1964), which explores the political functions of eunuchism. Hopkins’ article was revised and included in Hopkins (1978), 172–96. 43 For challenge or refinement see for example Patterson (1982), 317–31, and Stevenson (1995). These theories will be discussed with Hopkins’ in Chapter 4. 44 See Boulhol and Cochelin (1992); Moran (2002); Ringrose (2003). 45 Guyot (1980). 46 As observed by Scholz (2001), vii. 47 See for example Nock (1925); Beard (1994); Turcan (1996), 28–74; Caner (1997); Roller (1997). 48 Grayson (1995). See also Deller (1999). 49 Amongst the studies with a more popular approach are Mitamura (1970) and Anderson (1990). For comment on the sensational quality of the work of Mitamura see for example Tsai (1996), 43. For a partial survey of work on Chinese eunuchs see Tsai (1996), 8–9. 50 Tsai (1996). 51 Jay (1993). 52 Ayalon (1999). 53 The issue of terminology will be dealt with below. 54 Marmon (1995). 55 Peirce (1993), use index. 56 There is other notable work on Ottoman eunuchs, such as that by Toledano (1984) and Lad (2003). On eunuchs in Islamic Spain see Meouak (2004). 57 See for example Kuefler (1996) and Murray (1999). 58 Johns (2002), esp. 212–56. Further study has since been undertaken by Joshua Birk at the University of California, Santa Barbara. See for example Birk (2005). 59 Traditional accounts: Heriot (1975); Barbier (1996). Rosselli (1988) and (1992), 32–55. There is also a book devoted to Moreschi: Clapton (2004). Rosselli (1992), 32–3, highlights the factor of myth-making. 60 Finucci (2003), esp. 225–80. See also the interesting work of André (2006), esp. 16–50. 61 Engelstein (1999). See also Engelstein (2000). 62 Nanda (1998). See also Nanda (1996). 63 On elusive information in the case of the castrati see Barbier (1996), 10. A rare account of castration is provided by a Byzantine doctor, Paul of Aegina: see Tougher (1997a), 175–6, and Chapter 3 below. 64 See for example Engelstein (1999), 56–8, 61–8, 72–8, on the negativity of the reports produced concerning the Skoptsy. 65 See for example Tougher (forthcoming). 66 Nicholas the patriarch, Ep. 18, ed. Jenkins and Westerink (1973), 122.54–124.69. 67 See Tougher (1999a). 68 See for example Briant (2002), 270–2; Ayalon (1999), 14 and 36–8. 69 See for instance Boulhol and Cochelin (1992); Sidéris (2002). 70 See in general Briant (2002), 268–72. In relation to the castrati, Heriot (1975), 123, warns of the legendary stories that could exist about them. 71 Hornblower (2003). See also Sourvinou-Inwood (1988), esp. 171, for another example of suggested mythologising relating to eunuchs in Herodotus, in this case the tyrant

177

NOTES

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

of Corinth Periander’s intention to have 300 sons of leading Corcyraean families castrated. Briant (2002), 268. See for instance Llewellyn-Jones (2002), esp. 27–8. For this case see for example Hall (1989), 157–8. For the Phrygian as a eunuch see also Witt (2002), 241–2. For eunuchs in Attic drama see Miller (1997), 213–14. Curtius 4.6.7–29; Arr., Anab. 2.25.4. He is called Batis in Arrian. On the problem of identifying eunuchs see also Ayalon (1999), 285–8. Perhaps this is an appropriate place to appeal to authors to indicate in indices of books whether individuals are eunuchs; this would certainly assist those who study them. See Tougher (1997a), 171. Another example is the late antique grand chamberlain Heliodorus, whom Scholten (1995), 216–17, argues was not a eunuch. For this problem see also Ayalon (1999), 296–9. See Guyot (1980), 219–20; Ogden (1999), 199–201. Paus. 1.8.1; Strabo 13.4.1. Ogden (1999), 200. Ogden (1999), 200–1. Grayson (1995), 91–3. For support see Deller (1999); Hawkins (2002). Briant (2002), 276. See Tougher (1997a), 171. Ayalon (1979a). Moussa (1982), 212–14, and (1985). See Ayalon (1999), 5–8, and esp. 207–84. For discussion of the term Saqaliba also see Ayalon (1999), 349–52, Kentaro (2000), esp. 28–30, and Meouak (2004). Ayalon (1999), 254 and 268–70. Ayalon (1999), 276. See for instance Hawkins (2002), 218, and Ayalon (1999), 266. On the distinction between ‘eunuch’ and ‘castrato’ see Scholz (2001), vii. Briant (2002), 276–7. One is left with the impression that Briant simply prefers not to consider some eunuchs to be castrated men as he finds it hard to accept that they could be powerful elite officials. A wider knowledge of eunuch history undermines this stance. He is supported, however, by Hornblower (2003), 49–50. For discussion see for instance Stevenson (2002), 123–5. On the term castrato see for example Hawkins (2002), 218. For stories of fake castrati see for instance Barbier (1996), 12–13, 133, 154–5. Guyot (1980), 22. Castration will be discussed in the following chapter. See for example Engelstein (1999), 13, and Nanda (1998), xx. While the term Skoptsy means ‘castrated ones’, the term hijra is more problematic: Nanda (1998), 13–14. On the diversity of Chinese terminology see Tsai (1996), esp. 221–2. Beard (1994), 173–4. See Grayson (1995), 92–3. For further detail see Reade (1972), esp. 91–2, 95–6, and 99–100. There are also beardless figures on seals: Grayson (1995), 92 and n. 40. Llewellyn-Jones (2002), 24, on the specific case of the Persepolis reliefs. Llewellyn-Jones (2002), 24; Briant (2002), 274. See for instance James and Tougher (2005), 157. For a colour reproduction of the image see for instance Lowden (1997), plate 111, p. 202. For beardlessness as an indicator of being a eunuch see Dumitrescu (1987). However, some Byzantinists warn against the assumption that adult male beardless figures are eunuchs: Bjornholt and James (2007). A further complication is that some individuals

178

NOTES

106 107 108 109

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

who are known to be eunuchs can be depicted with beards. For further discussion see Chapter 7. Hawkins (2002), 230–1. He also argues on the grounds of appearance that Yariri, the regent and guardian of the young prince Kamani, is a eunuch. Elsner (1998), 213; Cumont (1926), esp. 125–6. See for example Miller (1997), 214–15. Marmon (1995), x, comments on the silence of the eunuchs in her case, though she describes this as ‘dignified’. Tsai (1996), 8, declares ‘It is high time that eunuchs be allowed to speak for themselves and be seen as the subjects rather than the objects of Ming history’. Perhaps the lack of eunuch voices explains in part the attraction of some novelists to eunuch narrators. The most famous example is Renault (1972), but see also Harris (2002) and Marsche (2002). Barbier (1996), 3, 176–8. For discussion of Balatri’s memoirs see Heriot (1975), 200–24. Tsai (1996), esp. 42–3. Engelstein (1999), xiii. Engelstein (1999), esp. 2–5, and for Bonch-Bruevich’s collection of information in general see esp. 158–62. On giving the hijras a voice of their own see Nanda (1998), esp. x-xi. Singh (2001). Nanda (1998), 124. This is also noted by Jaffrey (1997), 101, 215. Engelstein (1999), 9–10, 133–44, 150. Engelstein (1999), 79–88, 116. Nanda (1998), 69 (the vacillating opinions of the hijra Kamladevi), 72 (Meera did not tell everything despite the avowal to do so), 84 (the problem of getting them alone). She also observes the need to gain the trust of the hijras: xvi. Engelstein (1999), esp. 151. Nanda (1998), 126–7; Singh (2001), 16–17. Photographs are an important resource also for Islamic eunuchs, Chinese eunuchs and castrati. Marmon (1995), 102–4, refers to photographs of the eunuchs of the Prophet in Madina. Nanda (1998), 156–7. On portraits of Farinelli and other castrati see Heartz (1984) and (1990); Camiz (1988), esp. 183. For the Leo Bible see Spatharakis (1976), 7–14; Evans and Wixom, ed. (1997), 88–90. In addition, Tsai (1996), 219, notes that it is said that the tombs of some Chinese eunuchs were decorated with frescoes featuring images of themselves. See for example the comments of Nanda (1998), xvii. For instance Kuefler (1996), 279 and n. 10, and Ayalon (1999), 13, have pointed to the value of comparative studies. An example is provided by Grayson (1995). I have already expressed belief in the value of the approach: Tougher (2002b), 144–5. 3 CASTRATION

1 Procop., Wars 8.3.12–21. 2 Hdt. 8.105. Even if one questions the literal truth of the story it is likely that Herodotus is reflecting the reality of the trade in eunuch slaves. 3 Plin., HN 7.39. 4 The question of why eunuchs were employed by royal and imperial courts will be discussed in Chapter 4. 5 For instance, both Herodotus and Procopius in the passages cited above. 6 See for example Witt (2002).

179

NOTES

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

24

25

26 27 28 29 30 31

De Prof. 4 26v, ed. trans. Berry (1948), 68–9. See for instance Engelstein (1999), 5, 70, 81, 90–1, 134, and 183. For further discussion see Chapter 6. For comment on this text see for instance Mullett (2002). Ed. Gautier (1980), 291.23–4. Popham (1999) repeats the allegation that boys are abducted and castrated, but denial on the part of the hijras is reported on the BBC News website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1211564.stm. Such cases feature for instance in the documentaries Modern Day Eunuchs (2000), American Eunuchs (2003) and Eunuchs (2007). See also Money (1998), especially on the motive of sexual renunciation. Juv. 6.366–78. See Guyot (1980), 25–6. Edinburgh Tracts, vol. 8, Miscellaneous 1707–1821. For instance, forced castration was used in Nazi Germany to punish ‘sexually motivated murder, sadistic physical injury (grievous bodily harm), and sexual offences, excepting homosexuality’: Wille and Beier (1989), esp. 110. See for instance Heim and Hursch (1979) (who wonder whether the term punishment is indeed more correct than treatment); Cornwell (1997). Heim and Hursch consider the issue in its European context, reviewing evidence from studies undertaken in Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark. Cornwell is mostly concerned with the issue in its American context. More recently Duval Smith (2004) reported that France is to trial chemical castration for sex offenders, and in 2007 Channel 4 aired a documentary entitled The Castration Cure, about the legal chemical castration of child sex offenders in the USA. See Grayson (1995), 91. For a discussion of the concept of the lex talionis and mutilation as punishment see Bardel (2002), esp. 52–4. Mal. 18.18 and 18.150. Ekloga 17.39. See Tougher (1997a), 179–80. For castration as a bar to imperial power see for instance Psellos, Chron. 1.3. This relates to the tenth-century case of Basil Lekapenos, bastard son of Romanos I Lekapenos, whom Psellos says was castrated so that he would not be able to usurp the rights of Romanos’ legitimate heirs. See for example Psellos, Chron. 5.41–2. According to Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 238.43–5, Constantine VII had his in-laws Romanos and Basil Lekapenos castrated once he secured his imperial inheritance. This may be true of the case of Romanos, a nephew, but his brother-in-law Basil was castrated much earlier at the wishes of his own father: see the previous note. See for instance Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 328.67–8. Romanos later returned to Bulgaria, but assisted the Byzantines by delivering Skopje to them. He was rewarded by being recognised as patrikios and praipositos, and was appointed strategos of Abydos: Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 346.64–9. There are, however, contradictory stories about Romanos’ later life: see for instance Fine (1983), 189–91. See van Eickels (2004), and Sourvinou-Inwood (1988), esp. 178–80. Bardel (2002), 54. For castration in war generally see for instance Burkert (1983), 68. See for example Tauber (1940), 78–80. Discussing the castrati, Finucci (2003), 248–9 and 250–1, considers the operation of castration for medical purposes. See for example Glass and Watkin (1997), esp. 376–7, and Bullough (2002), 12. Nov. 60. Such as John the Faster and John of Heraclea: see Tougher (2004a), 97. Some of the castrati were also said to have been castrated on medical grounds: Barbier (1996), 8, and Peschel and Peschel (1987), 24.

180

NOTES

32 See for example an episode from the Life of David, Symeon and George, in Talbot, ed. (1998), 205–6. In this case castration was averted due to saintly intervention. 33 For example, Miracle 25 and Miracle 44, in Crisafulli and Nesbitt (1997), 146–7 and 218–23. In Byzantium St Artemios was particularly renowned for curing hernias. 34 Orlandos and Vranoussis (1973), 6. I am grateful to Sergey Ivanov for this reference. 35 Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks 10.15. 36 Glass and Watkin (1997), 375–6. See also Barbier (1996), 8. 37 See for instance Colapinto (2000). 38 Eventually Brenda reverted to a male identity, taking the name David. Sadly, David Reimer committed suicide in 2004. 39 For the lack of information about the operation from early modern Italy see Barbier (1996), 5, 27–8. On the scarcity of intelligence generally, see the comments of Penzer (1965), 140–1. 40 Suet., Dom. 7. 41 See Barbier (1996), 5, 10. 42 Nanda (1998), 26. 43 Cantacuzino (2000). Also the BBC News website reported a case of a man being jailed in America for performing an illegal castration in his home: http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967383.stm. 44 Nanda (1998), 26–9. 45 Stent (1877). 46 Engelstein (1999), esp. 79–80, 84–5. 47 Paul. Aeg., Epitome of Medicine 6.68. 48 The translation is adapted slightly from that of Adams (1846), vol. 2, 379–80. 49 Liud., Antapod. 6.6. Like the Chinese, Muslims seem to have preferred eunuchs who had both penis and testicles removed: Ayalon (1999), esp. 307–14. 50 See for example Guyot (1980), 20–3. 51 See for instance Glass and Watkin (1997), 377. 52 See Chapter 2. 53 Procop., Wars 3.11.6. 54 Peschel and Peschel (1987), 24. 55 Engelstein (1999), 48. 56 Plin., HN 11.110. An investigation into the sexual effects of castration draws heavily on data compiled from the study of soldiers whose genitalia were injured in war: Tauber (1940), esp. 77–8. Ancillon (1707), 127, refers to a case of a man who lost one testicle in war, and the other because of illness. Millant (1908), 276, also refers to a case of war injury: in 1876 a man born at Pera was wounded fighting in the ranks of the Turkish troops and his testicles had to be removed. Millant says the man was still alive, and had found a place in the seraglio. 57 Millant (1908), 252 n. 1. 58 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4253849.stm 59 For Favorinus see for example Gleason (1995), esp. 3–20 and 131–58; Stevenson (1995), esp. 503–5; Swain (1989). 60 Philostr., VS 1.8. 61 Mason (1978). 62 Pan. Lat. 3.19.4. 63 Barbier (1996), 12–13, is sceptical about this story. 64 Nanda (1998), 14, 97, 116. 65 Ancillon (1707), 16–18. 66 See for instance Fausto-Sterling (2000), esp. 30–44; Bullough (2002), 12–13; Chase (1998). The phenomenon was also highlighted by the Channel 4 documentary Secret Intersex (2004). Intersex societies exist, such as those of North America and of the United Kingdom. 67 See for example Nanda (1998), 141.

181

NOTES

68 Rousselle (1988), 124. 69 For the condition and the physical characteristics associated with primary hypogonadism see Peschel and Peschel (1987), esp. 26–30. For the effects of castration see also for example Cawadias (1946), 504; Cauldwell (1947); Barbier (1996), 13–17; Hopkins (1963), 78, and (1978), 193–4; Engelstein (1999), 61; Tsai (1996), 4. An interesting article on the long-term effects of castration, drawing on medical studies of the Skoptsy and Chinese and Ottoman eunuchs, is Wilson and Roehrborn (1999). 70 Peschel and Peschel (1987), 26–7; Jenkins (1998), 1877–8. While the vocal cords did not grow the rib-cage did, which contributed to the distinctiveness of the castrato singing voice: see also Barbier (1996), 16. 71 Those who had their penises removed too could employ a reed to urinate. Penzer (1965), 144, citing George Sandys and Sir Paul Rycaut, observes that Ottoman eunuchs in the seraglio ‘carried quills of silver hidden in their turbans, through which to make water’. 72 On the tallness of pre-pubertal eunuchs see Leroi (2003), 199–203; Jenkins (1998), 1878; Barbier (1996), 14–15. Heriot (1975), esp. 27, cites Charles de Brosses’ memorable comment on the height of the castrato Marianino: ‘at six foot, [he] was the tallest princess anyone had ever seen’. Caricatures of the castrati often reflect their abnormal proportions: see for example Plate 10, and Peschel and Peschel (1987), 28–9. 73 Pelikan’s medical report of 1872 on castration emphasises the Skoptsy’s sallow aspect: Engelstein (1999), 61. 74 Barbier (1996), 14. On the castrati’s development of breasts, for instance, see the remarks of Heriot (1975), 182, in reference to Bellino, the fake castrato who features in the memoirs of Casanova. 75 See for instance The Times, July 13 2006, 41, and the report on the BBC News website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5171892.stm 76 Penzer (1965), 144. See also the comments of Barbier (1996), 15; Peschel and Peschel (1987), 30. 77 Juv. 6.366–78. On the sexual activity of the post-pubertal galli see Rousselle (1988), 122–4. She observes ‘the aim of these men was to be able to continue their sexual life but to remain infertile after the removal of their testicles or the cutting of the vas deferens which we know today as vasectomy. The male characteristics already acquired are retained after removal of the testicles, for other male hormones are produced in the body by the suprarenal glands’. 78 On the True Purity of Virginity 61, PG 30, 793–6. For comment on Basil’s discussion of eunuchs see Elm (1994), 122–4; Rousselle (1988), 123. For the text in general see Shaw (1997); Elm (1994), 113–36; Brown (1989), 267–9. 79 Ed. Lundström (1902), 17–23. Paul’s story is also repeated in the typikon of the Byzantine monastery of Phoberos: see Thomas and Hero, eds. (2000), vol. 3, 880–946, esp. 941–2, and for comment on the story of Eutropius see Jordan (2000), 68–70. 80 See Mullett (2002), 190. 81 See Barbier (1996), 13–14; Peschel and Peschel (1987), 30–6. 82 See Engelstein (1999), 64–6. 83 See for instance Wille and Beier (1989); Tauber (1940). 84 See also the comments of Heim and Hursch (1979), esp. 298. 85 On eunuchs and sex see the comments of Ayalon (1999), 316–25. 86 On the issue of variation see the interesting comments of Cawadias (1946), 506, who reflects ‘In eunuchism it is not the deficiency of the testis which explains everything, but the reaction of the other elements of this system of constitutional regulation, of the other endocrines, of the nervous vegetative system, of the psyche’. 87 Cantacuzino (2000). 88 Nanda (1998), 72, 81.

182

NOTES

89 As an illustration, Martial, Epigrams 3.81, refers to a gallus performing cunnilingus. This is memorably translated by Simon Pembroke in Beard (1994), 175. Nanda (1998), esp. 9–11, observes that hijras can work as prostitutes, having sex with men. See also the discussion of Finucci (2003), 260–80, on the sexual activity of castrati. In the course of this she observes that ‘there is sex and sex’. 90 Millant (1908), 164–5 and 167. 91 For Aristotle on eunuchs and women see Mayhew (2004), 54–68. 92 See for instance Ringrose (1994), 87–9. 93 Arist., Gen. an. 4.1 766a. Aristotle was friends with the eunuch Hermias, the tyrant of Atarneus on the Ionian coast, thus his knowledge of eunuchs may have been as much practical as theoretical. For Hermias see Guyot (1980), 207–9; Renehan (1982); Wormell (1935). 94 Arist., Gen. an. 5.3 783b-784a. On the effects of castration see also Hist. an. 8 (9).50 631b-632a. Testosterone causes men to go bald: Leroi (2003), 282–3. 95 Catull. 63. See for example Roller (1997), 551–2. 96 The attribution of greed was not just confined to money however; for instance eunuchs can also be depicted as having large appetites for sex and food. See for example the comments of Basil the Great, Ep. 115. 97 Amm. Marc. 18.5.4. 98 See Engelstein (1999), 69, 126, 143. See also Marmon (1995), 104–5, on the idea that Islamic eunuchs have wealth squirreled away. 99 Plut., Demetr. 25. 100 For Narses see for instance Fauber (1990). 101 Ayalon (1999), 19, 330–1, notes the role in the case of Islamic eunuchs also, and realises the parallel with the Skoptsy. Millant (1908), 62–3, comments on the role of Skoptsy as bankers, observing that ‘Pour une caisse comme pour un harem, un eunuque est le plus sûr gardien’ . Echoes of the role seem to surface in the story of the hijra Sushila, who was charged with the money and keys to the cupboard of the house of her ‘husband’: Nanda (1998), 86. 4 THE COURT EUNUCHS OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE 1 See especially Chapter 1. 2 See for instance Hopkins (1963) and (1978); Guyot (1980), 130–76. 3 For eunuchs as cubicularii see for instance Guilland (1955), 52–75, and (1967) I, 269–82; Hopkins (1963), 77–8, and (1978), 191–3; Guyot (1980), 142–3; Sidéris (2003). The office of praepositus sacri cubiculi has been much studied: see for instance Dunlap (1924), esp. 178–223; Guilland (1961) and (1967) I, 333–80; Guyot (1980), 130–57; Scholten (1995) and (1998); Schlinkert (1996), 237–84. 4 For Ammianus’ treatment of eunuchs see for example Sidéris (2000); Tougher (1999a); Guyot (1980), 164–6. For Ammianus and his history see for instance Drijvers and Hunt, eds (1999); Barnes (1998); Matthews (1989); Thompson (1947). 5 For Eusebius see for example Guyot (1980), 199–201; Dunlap (1924), 260–70. 6 Amm. Marc. 14.11.1–3; 14.11.20–2; 15.3.1–3. 7 Amm. Marc. 18.4.3; 20.2.2–3. 8 Amm. Marc. 21.15.4; 22.3.12. 9 Other contemporary authors such as Athanasius (Hist. Ar. 35–7), Julian (Ep. ad. Ath. 272 D and 274 A-B) and Libanius (Or. 18.152) also testify to the significance and power of Eusebius. 10 Amm. Marc. 15.2.10; 16.6.3; 18.4.2–4. 11 See for instance Tougher (1999a), 68–71. It is notable that in his summing up on Constantius one of the criticisms that Ammianus makes of the emperor is that he was excessively influenced by his eunuchs: 21.16.16. 12 Amm. Marc. 15.2.10; 16.7.2–10 and 20.8.19. See also Guyot (1980), 201–2 and 206.

183

NOTES

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Amm. Marc. 27.10.11 and 30.6.4; 30.4.2 and 31.13.14. Lact., DMP 30.1–3. Lib., Or. 18.130. See the treatment in Guyot (1980), 157–64. I will return to the question of dating below. HA 18.23.5–6; 18.34.3; 18.45.4–5. HA 18.23.4–7; 18.34.3. HA 18.45.4–5; 18.66.3–4. HA 20.23.7; 20.24.2–5. Guyot (1980), 158–9. HA 18.67.1. Constantine is also depicted as being anti-eunuch in Epit. de Caes. 41.10. HA 26.43.1. Claud., In Eutr. I. Claudian produced a second invective on Eutropius after the eunuch fell from power in 399: In Eutr. II. For discussion of the invectives see especially Long (1996). For a brief analysis of the anti-eunuch sentiment of the invectives see Guyot (1980), 167–70. For Eutropius and his position at Arcadius’ court see also for example Scholten (1995), 223–7; Liebeschuetz (1991), esp. 92–108; Dunlap (1924), 272–84. For Claudian and his role see for example Cameron (1970). For example In Eutr. I.234–43. In Eutr. I.1–23. For instance Lib., Or. 18.130; Amm. Marc. 22.4. The fifth-century church historian Socrates attributes Julian’s actions to more personal reasons: 3.1.53. He says Julian got rid of the eunuchs as his wife had died and he did not intend to marry again. Julian, Misopogon 352 A-B. Pan. Lat. 3.19.3–4. Zos. 4.37.2. See also PLRE 1, Anonymous 30, p. 1011. Guyot (1980), 151–3. See the testimony of Julian himself: Misopogon 352 A-C. Mardonius had already been tutor to Julian’s mother Basilina. Amm. Marc. 16.7; 20.8.19 and 20.9.2. Ammianus is full of praise for Eutherius, despite the fact that he was a eunuch. It is thought that the eunuch was one of Ammianus’ oral sources for his history, as Eutherius also ended up living in Rome: see for example Matthews (1989), 25. The glowing account of Eutherius’ character and actions is usually accepted at face value, but for an alternative interpretation see Woods (1998). Woods (1998), 114. Libanius reports that under Julian eunuchs fulfilled menial tasks and behaved themselves: Or. 18.149. Ambrose, Ep. 24.2. See also Guyot (1980), 233. HA 18.67.1. For Antiochus and the complexities of his career see especially Greatrex and Bardill (1996). Mal. 14.15. A key source for Chrysanthius is the history of Priscus of Panium, which only survives in fragments. Priscus was a contemporary of Chrysanthius, and disliked the eunuch: see Blockley (1981), 63–4. The Life of Daniel the Stylite 31, Evagrius, HE. 2.2, and the Chronicon Paschale 450 describe him as the spatharius, thus chief bodyguard. Mal. 14.19 and 14.32 describes him as cubicularius. Mal. 14.19. For Lausus and this text, which was written by Palladius, see Rapp (2001). See for example Guilland (1943), 216–19. For fifth-century court eunuchs see also Scholten (1995), 220–42 and 246–51. Mal. 16.20.

184

NOTES

48 Mal. 17.2. 49 For Narses see for example Fauber (1990); Guilland (1943), 205–6; Dunlap (1924), 284–99. 50 Mal. 18.71. 51 Mal. 18.116 and 18.140. 52 As treasurer: Procop., Wars 1.15.31; 6.13.16. As praepositus: Just., Nov. App. 7. Inscriptions also attest that Narses had been praepositus: see for instance PLRE 3, 913–14. 53 Procop., Wars 8.3.19; SH 29.13. 54 Anth. Graec. 16.33. 55 This is clear from Corippus’ panegyrical poem on the accession of Justin II. See especially 1.76–96, 1.122–59 and 4.330–64. 56 On the titles and honours held by grand chamberlains see for instance Scholten (1995), 39–50; Guyot (1980), 136–7; Hopkins (1978), 174–6; Dunlap (1924), 193–8. 57 Theod. Cod. 7.8.3. 58 Theod. Cod. 6.8.1. The emperors say that it was the case of Macrobius which inspired them to issue this law. The law was issued in Constantinople so Theodosius II was its prime mover. 59 For discussion of the text see for example Jones (1964), 1417–50, and more recently Kulikowski (2000).The text has been edited by Seeck (1962). 60 Not. Dig. Or. 1, Seeck, ed. (1962), 1; Not. Dig. Oc. 1, Seeck, ed. (1962), 103. 61 Not. Dig. Or. 10, Seeck, ed. (1962), 30. The folio for the western grand chamberlain is lost. 62 See for instance Dunlap (1924), 195–7. 63 For example Scholten (1995), 75–183; Guyot (1980), 138–9; Dunlap (1924), 199–202. 64 See for instance Guyot (1980), 147–9; Hopkins (1978), 177. This applies to other cultures too, such as the Chinese case: Tsai (1996), 222. On the importance of intimacy for explaining the influence of eunuchs see also Patterson (1982), 317–18. 65 Amm. Marc. 18.4.4; Mal. 14.19; Anth. Graec. 16.33. 66 As acknowledged by Claudius Mamertinus: see n. 32 above. 67 See for instance Scholten (1995), 65–73; Guyot (1980), 139–42; Hopkins (1978), 175–6; Dunlap (1924), 202–23. 68 Guyot (1980), 140–1; Costa (1972). Costa argues that the castrensis was originally not subordinate to the praepositus sacri cubiculi, and that in fact the latter had been subordinate to the former. 69 Not. Dig. Or. 17 and Oc. 14–15, Seeck, ed. (1962), 40–1 and 158–9. 70 As De Gaiffier (1957), 46 n. 2, notes. 71 See for instance Zos. 4.22.4. 72 Zos. 5.37.4–6. 73 Zos. 5.43. 74 See for instance Scholten (1995), 246. John of Antioch identifies Heraclius as Valentinian’s head chamberlain (PRIMIKˆRIOQT}NKOITÑNVN) rather than as a eunuch, but other sources, including Jordanes, assert that he was a eunuch: see Blockley (1983), 328–9, 332–3. 75 He features in the Life of Germanus of Auxerre. See for instance PLRE 2, Ac(h)olius, p. 6. 76 See Dunlap (1924), 223. 77 See for instance PLRE 2, Seda, p. 987. 78 See for instance PLRE 2, Triwila, pp. 1126–7. 79 For example, Bullough (2002), 7; Mitamura (1970), 10; Wittfogel (1957), 355. 80 For the view that there was an Achaemenid harem see Llewellyn-Jones (2002). 81 For an edition and translation of the play see Brothers (2000). The play was an adaptation of the Greek original by Menander, thus indicating that Greeks also

185

NOTES

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

94

95

96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104

associated eunuchs with attendance upon women. The (possible) eunuch of Helen in Euripides’ Orestes springs to mind. Cass. Dio 76.14.4–6. See for example Hopkins (1978), 194; Sidéris (2003), 167–9. See also Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 70–1, for the association of women and eunuchs in Christian Passions. Jer., Ep. 22.32. For comment see Adkin (2003), 130 and 309. Julian, Misopogon 352 B; Ep. ad Ath. 274 B. Patterson (1982), 325–6, considers the harem role as ‘the least important reason for the presence of eunuchs’. On the empress acquiring a grand chamberlain see for instance Holum (1982), 131. For the old view see for instance Guilland (1944b), 191, (1967), I, p. 202. For the rejection of the view see for instance Hopkins (1967), 69–70, (1978), 180–1. Ayalon (1999), 14. Hdt. 8.105. There are other indications of the trustworthiness of eunuchs in the Histories: Hdt. 1.117, 3.4, 3.77. Ayalon (1999), 36–8. Xen., Cyropaed. 7.5.58–65. Ayalon mistakenly thinks that the Cyrus in question is Cyrus the Younger, whom Xenophon had served. Xenophon also offers an example of the devotion of eunuchs: Cyropaed. 7.3.15 The view that Persian eunuchs were faithful to the king because they had no children or family and he was their patron is repeated in the Greek novel Aethiopica by Heliodorus, who describes the eunuchs of the Persian court as the eyes and ears of the king: 8.17.4. The novel is usually dated to the third century AD, though a case has been made for composition in the fourth century AD. It is possible that it reflected contemporary beliefs about eunuchs in the Roman empire. A faithful Persian eunuch also features for instance in the story about the escape of Hormisdas, brother of the Sasanid Shah Shapur II, to the Roman empire: Zos. 2.27.1–4. Reported on the BBC News website by George Arney, ‘Blurring the gender lines in Bangladesh’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/asia/ 1035555.stm). Perhaps the belief in the trustworthiness of eunuchs explains why they were entrusted with financial roles. Epiphanius of Salamis, Pan. 58.4.3. Epiphanius considers that eunuchs were usually created in order to guard women, and believes they are ‘well-disposed’ due to their castration. This etymology was also known to the Byzantines: see Guyot (1980), 20 n. 14; Ringrose (2003), 16 and 39. I shall discuss the concept further in subsequent chapters, especially Chapter 7. For example, Eusebius, Chrysaphius and Amantius. Barbier (1996), 120 and 205–7. In addition see Heriot (1975) on the influence of Cecchi (114), Farinelli (163) and Matteuccio (184). For the role of castrati as diplomats see also Barbier (1996), 165. See for example Lenfant (2004), lxvii-lxviii and cxviii-cxx. Ctesias, Persica, frag. 15 (54), ed. Lenfant (2004), 139. Briant (2002), 268 and 274, is not impressed by this story, considering it an example of the fictional nature of Ctesias’ stories, and wonders if Artoxares was a eunuch at all. See however Lenfant (2004), cxix. On this dichotomy see Briant (2002), 268–72. The negative stereotype of eunuchs is found in other cultures too, such as the Chinese case: Tsai (1996), 212. Theoph. Cont. 6.22, ed. Bekker, 369–70. Interestingly Jenkins (1948) attempts to interpret the flight as a sham in order to garner information for the benefit of the emperor, but this seems far-fetched: Tougher (1997b), 212–15. Hdt. 4.43. To be fair, the eunuch only takes this action after the execution of his master Sataspes. Strabo 13.4.1; Guyot (1980), 219–20. Ayalon (1999), 19, 166–7, 337.

186

NOTES

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120 121 122

123 124 125 126

127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

136

On the question of the ethnic origins of court eunuchs see Tougher (2002b). For the black eunuchs of Istanbul see for instance Toledano (1984). See for instance Penzer (1965), 119–23; Peirce (1993), 12, 179. See the comments of Ayalon (1999), 31–6. Ayalon (1999), 31–2. Just., Cod. Just. 4.42. Donat., Comm. in Ter. Eun. 4.4.22; Procop., Wars 8.3.12–21. Tsai (1996), 16. See for instance Tsai (1996), 17–21. Grayson (1995), 86, went so far as to declare that there were no foreign eunuchs at the Chinese court. This will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5. See for instance Tougher (2002b), 149. For Muslim eunuchs see Ayalon (1999), 31, 75, 167, 298, though he emphasises their rareness. For the implications of the repetition of Roman law see Ayalon (1979a), 70. See however Harries (1999), 77–88 and 212, who questions the view that repetition of legislation indicates that it was ineffective, and argues that it in fact indicates that it is effective. See Guyot (1980), 31; Scholten (1995), 28 and n. 124. A Gallic eunuch is met in Ambrose: see Wiedemann (1986); see also PLRE 1, Anonymous 31, p. 1011. As discussed at various points by Guyot (1980), 157–76, in his consideration of fourth-century polemic against court eunuchs. See for example Jay (1993), esp. 467–8; Grayson (1995), 86. Some Chinese eunuchs had been married and had children before they were castrated, whilst others took wives after becoming eunuchs. Jay (1993), 478. Jay (1993), esp. 468; Tsai (1996), 34. Although the castrati were not court eunuchs (though they could feature in political roles, as has been seen) it is interesting to consider the topics of marriage and family relationships in relation to them too. The marriage of castrati proved controversial, eliciting for instance the condemnatory work of Ancillon (1707). The importance of extended family to the castrati is also evident, such as their attachment to their nephews: see for instance Barbier (1996), 115, 212. Ayalon (1999), 254, 292, 321–4. Shipley (2000), 312. See for example Wormell (1935), 58. For the opposition to marriage see Leo VI, Nov. 98. It is possible that the law was flouted, though I know of no examples of Byzantine eunuchs who were married. The social relationships of Byzantine eunuchs will be discussed further in the following chapter. See for example Ringrose (2003), 191–3; Guilland (1943), 228–9, (1967) I, 184–5; Janin (1931). I will return to John in the next chapter. Leo VI, Nov. 26. Ctesias, Persica, frag. 13a (10), ed. Lenfant (2004), 117–18. Briant (2002), 268, considers the story to be more fairytale than history. On the episode see also Lenfant (2004), lxix-lxx. Claud., In Eutr. I.263 (‘sororem’), II praef.41 (‘soror’), II.88 (‘soror et…uxor’). Long (1996), 133. Perhaps the ‘sister’ could even be another court eunuch. See for instance PLRE 3, Ioannes 53, p. 663. See PLRE 3, Rusticus 4, pp. 1103–4. Constantius, Vita Germani 39. Hopkins (1978), 190 n. 46, drew attention to this case, and understood the alumnus to be an adopted son. A similar case is that of the sixthcentury eunuch Calopodius, who fostered an aristocratic boy: see PLRE 3, Calopodius 2, p. 268. Procop., Wars 4.21.1.

187

NOTES

137 This makes one think also of the case of Mamas, the nephew of the monk Sophronius: Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Theodosius, ed. Schwartz (1939), 240. He became cubicularius and praepositus in the reign of Anastasius, but he had been castrated due to ill health. For comment see Scholten (1995), 242. 138 Procop., SH 29.13. It is interesting to note that in the historical novel The Janissary Tree, set in nineteenth-century Istanbul, it transpires that the eunuch librarian Ibou is the great nephew of the Kislar Agha: Goodwin (2006), 306. 139 For Constantius II’s law permitting eunuchs to make wills see Cod. Just. 6.22.5. 140 For an examination of the relationships that fourth-century grand chamberlains had with a range of individuals see Guyot (1980), 144–7. 141 Liberatus, Breviarium 11.64, ed. Schwartz (1936), 114.34. Mango and Scott (1997), 155 n. 3, also reference Nestorius, Bazaar of Heracleides. 142 See for instance PLRE 2, Ioannes 22, p. 599. 143 Wittfogel (1957), esp. 354–8. For reference to, and discussion of, Wittfogel’s ideas see for instance Coser (1964), 881 n. 10 and 883; Hopkins (1978), 180 n. 27 and 189 n. 44; Guyot (1980), 179–80; Patterson (1982), 315. 144 Wittfogel (1957), 354. He also refers to Achaemenid, Roman and Muslim eunuchs. 145 Wittfogel (1957), 357. 146 Wittfogel (1957), 359. 147 Wittfogel is cited by Tsai (1996), 244 n. 8. 148 Tsai (1996), 7. 149 Tsai (1996), 58, 219–20, 226, 228, 230. 150 Though he attributes this to lowly social origin rather than ethnic origin or lack of ability to reproduce. 151 See for instance Ayalon (1999), 66–8, for the question of eunuchs in the early Islamic period. One wonders how Wittfogel would account for the presence of eunuchs in certain Hellenistic kingdoms, especially the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. 152 Wittfogel (1957), 360. 153 Hopkins (1963) and (1978), 172–96. 154 The use of eunuchs as scapegoats is also noted in the instance of Chinese eunuchs by Tsai (1996), 225. Achaemenid eunuchs were dispensable too: Llewellyn-Jones (2002), 41. 155 Hopkins (1963), 173–4, 188–91. 156 Hopkins (1978), 181–6. 157 Hopkins is clearly indebted to the ideas of Wittfogel. 158 Hopkins (1978), 186–8. 159 Hopkins (1978), 191–3. 160 Hopkins (1978), 184, 192–3. 161 Patterson (1982), 299–333. 162 Patterson (1982), 315. 163 Patterson (1982), 317–19. 164 Patterson (1982), 322. 165 Patterson (1982), 329. 166 Stevenson (1995). 167 Stevenson (1995), 504. 168 Stevenson (1995), 505. 169 Stevenson (1995), 506. The source is Cass. Dio 78.17. 170 Hopkins (1978), 179 and 191. 171 Hopkins (1978), 190 nn. 46 and 47. 172 See Chapter 1 above. See also Guyot (1980), 121–9; Wittfogel (1957), 357. Hopkins (1978), 192, does mention briefly eunuchs at the Roman court prior to Diocletian. 173 See for instance Alan Cameron (1965). Hopkins (1978), 192, seems to accept that there were powerful eunuchs at the court of Heliogabalus, though he argues that this does not affect his argument.

188

NOTES

174 There is also a chicken and egg problem: which came first, the isolation of the emperor or the use of eunuchs? 175 Philips (2000), 222. 176 Patterson (1982), 328–9. 177 Marmon (1995); Ringrose (1996). 178 Marmon (1995), ix. 179 Ringrose (1996), 92. The view that Byzantine eunuchs constituted a third gender will be discussed in Chapter 7. 180 Wittfogel (1957), 360. 181 On the increasing ‘orientalisation’ of Rome see for instance Wittfogel (1957), 357. 182 HA 18.66.3–4. 183 Hopkins (1978), 186 n. 35. 184 Hopkins (1978), 193, does recognise this. 185 Soc. 3.1.50–3. 186 Ayalon (1999), 311–12. 187 Tsai (1996), 18–19. However, Tsai (1996), 28, also asserts that ‘castrated eunuchs were an imperial monopoly’. 188 Ter., Eun. 1.2.167–8. 189 The parallel between angels and eunuchs will be discussed further in Chapter 7. 190 Marmon (1995), 13, observes that the presence of eunuchs around the Sultan ‘also served to emphasize the sacred power of rulership’. The work of Marmon in particular stresses the importance of eunuchs as general boundary markers. 191 See for example Mitamura (1970), 169–72; Tsai (1996), 14. 5 TRANSFORMATIONS 1 The prosopography can be consulted for a fuller impression of the roles and importance of the court eunuchs. 2 ODB, 1955; PMBZ 6931; PBE, Stephanos 4. 3 Theoph. AM 6186 and AM 6187; Nikeph., Brev. 39 and 40. 4 In recent years there have been several books published on Byzantine empresses, many of which deal with Eirene: Garland (1999), 73–94; Herrin (2001), 51–129; James (2001). It is thought that Eirene depended especially on eunuchs because they could not aspire to her imperial position, but it is reported that Staurakios planned to make himself emperor. Perhaps eunuchs were deemed less dangerous agents, compared to whole men, or perhaps as a woman Eirene had had more opportunity to forge strong ties with eunuchs than with whole men. 5 Staurakios: ODB, 1945; PMBZ 6880; PBE, Staurakios 1. Aetios: ODB, 30; PMBZ 106; PBE, Aetios 1. 6 Staurakios’ power from the early days of the regency is acknowledged: Theoph. AM 6274. 7 ODB, 2056; PMBZ 8050; PBE, Theoktistos 3. It is Theophanes Continuatus who identifies Theoktistos as a eunuch: Theoph. Cont. 4.1, ed. Bekker (1838), 148. It seems odd that the identification is rare, given the amount of other sources which mention Theoktistos, but it tends to be accepted that he was a eunuch, despite the doubts of Guilland (1943), 220, (1967) I, 180. 8 For example, Grégoire (1966), 105–8. 9 Guilland (1943), 221, (1967) I, 180. 10 PMBZ 719; PBE, Baanes 5. There is no entry for Baanes in ODB. PMBZ identifies him as Baanes Angures, though PBE considers this Baanes probably to be a distinct individual. Baanes is not identified as a eunuch (and PBE and PMBZ do not list him as one), but his title of praipositos and office of sakellarios indicate that it is likely that he was one. Guilland clearly thought that he was a eunuch: (1943), 221, (1967) I, 180,

189

NOTES

11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28 29

and (1970), esp. 301. From letters of Photios we know of a John Angourios, who was a eunuch, and also patrikios and sakellarios: PMBZ 3322, PBE, Ioannes 447. GMC 840. See for instance Tougher (1997b), esp. 197–203. Much has been written on Samonas. See for instance: Janin (1935); Jenkins (1948); Rydén (1984); Tougher (1997b), esp. 197–201 and 208–16; ODB, 1835–6. Although no less important, and maybe more so, Constantine the Paphlagonian has been neglected. He does not even earn an entry in ODB. For some comment on him see Guilland (1943), 222, (1967) I, 181; Tougher (1997b), 200–1; Garland (1999), 118–23. For Basil see Brokkaar (1972); Ross (1958); Guilland (1943), 223–6, (1967) I, 182–3; ODB, 270. See Svoronos (1994), 190–217, esp. 214–15; McGeer (2000), 111–32, esp. 128–31. See for instance Howard-Johnston (1995), 93 and n. 63. See Svoronos (1994), 202–3; McGeer (2000), 118–19. Trans. McGeer (2000), 118. Peira 31, 1. See also Kazhdan and McCormick (1997), 179 and n. 61. For John see Janin (1931); Guilland (1943), 228–9, (1967) I, 184–5; ODB, 1070. The orphanotrophos was the director of the orphanotropheion of Constantinople. For the orphanage see for instance Miller (2003), esp. 176–208. For Nikephoritzes see Angold (1997), esp. 121–4; Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), esp. 51–7; Lemerle (1977), 300–2; Guilland (1943), 230–1, (1967) I, 186–7; ODB, 1475. Psellos reports his role under Basil II, though he (Chron. 3.18) and others also report that John was in service to Romanos Argyros before he became emperor. See for instance Janin (1931), 431. The question of the image of eunuchs will be considered further in Chapter 7. For the text see Oikonomidès (1972), 81–235. An earlier edition is provided in Bury (1911). See for instance ODB, 1661–2. Oikonomidès (1972) includes other taktika: the taktikon Uspenskij (dating to 842–843), the taktikon Beneševič (dating between 934 and 944) and the taktikon of the Escurial (dating to the 970s). None of these are as elaborate as Philotheos’ treatise and none is as interested in eunuchs either. Philotheos’ text thus stands out as being of particular interest. Perhaps it was a special commission of the emperor Leo VI. Perhaps Philotheos was a eunuch himself. Kazhdan and McCormick (1997), 179 and n. 63, suggest that eunuchs did play a part in the composition of the Book of Ceremonies, since it shows a particular concern with their own interests. They allude to the possible involvement of Basil Lekapenos in the production of the Leipzig manuscript of the Book of Ceremonies. They also note the role of eunuchs in general in the control of imperial ceremonial by the ninth century. Ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 125.13–129.10. Guilland discusses these titles in several of his articles. For the nipsistiarios, the koubikoularios, the spatharokoubikoularios and the ostiarios see Guilland (1955) and (1967) I, 266–99. For the primikerios see Guilland (1956) and (1967) I, 300–32. For the praipositos see Guilland (1961) and (1967) I, 333–80. For discussion of the eunuch titles see also Bury (1911), 120–4. Life of Euthymios the Patriarch, ed. Karlin-Hayter (1970), 51.6–7. See for instance Oikonomidès (1972), 300–1. For these titles of the bearded see ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 93.12–95.9. In total there were eighteen titles available to non-eunuch men. On the protospatharios see Guilland (1955/56/57) and (1967) II, 99–131. Ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 133.18–135.8. These offices are discussed in several articles by Guilland. For the parakoimomenos see Guilland (1944b) and (1967) I, 202–15. For the protovestiarios see Guilland (1944c) and (1967), I, 216–36. For the other offices see Guilland (1945) and (1967) I, 237–65. On the eunuch offices see also Bury (1911), 124–9.

190

NOTES

30 It is notable that PLRE 2, Paulus 25, pp. 852–3, asserts in relation to this fifth-century sacellarius that ‘The post of sacellarius was held only by eunuchs’. 31 Bury (1911), 74. 32 Guilland (1944a), 186, (1967) I, 198. 33 Ringrose (2003), 183 and n. 77. Perhaps the fact that a eunuch at the court of Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) played the role of a mounted eparch during court entertainments has significance in the light of this restriction: Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 508.89–509.4. 34 As Guilland (1944a), 186, (1967) I, 198, pointed out. For instance Nicholas under Constantine VIII; Constantine the nobelissimos under Michael IV; and Theodore under Michael VI. 35 GMC 827. The appointment is often an element in debates about the nature of the relationship between Michael III and Basil: see for example Tougher (1997b), 29. 36 For a comparison of the two texts and what this reveals about court eunuchs see Tougher (2004), esp. 72–7. 37 See for instance Oikonomidès (1972), 299. For the creation of other new titles in the tenth century see for instance Guilland (1944a), 189, (1967) I, 200. 38 See for example Haldon (1997); Cameron (1993), esp. 128–200. 39 Dunlap (1924), 224. 40 The source is Theoph. AM 6094. It has to be admitted that this is rather a late source. PLRE 3, Stephanus 53, p. 1195, tentatively identifies the parakoimomenos with Stephen, the tutor of Maurice’s sons. 41 See for instance Oikonomidès (1972), 305. 42 Oikonomidès (1972), 305; PBE, Andreas 42 and Theodoros 260. 43 GMC 868. 44 Theoph. Cont. 234. Another eunuch of Slav origin is Niketas, who became patriarch under Constantine V in 766. Zon. 15.7.23 says he had lived in the women’s quarters, suggesting a court career prior to his ecclesiastical one, but Zonaras is a late voice. 45 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 438.63–5. 46 PBE, Artakios 1; PMBZ 644. He is thought to be a eunuch because he is a chamberlain, though the assumption has been questioned. The seal is also issued in the name of Sergios the koubikoularios: PBE, Sergios 31; PMBZ 6583. 47 Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 479.41 app. Guilland (1943), 233, (1967) I, 188, seems to confuse him with Andronikos Aluattes. 48 See for example Pellat (1969), 88. I thank Al-Amin Abou-Seada for this information. On Jahiz’s interest in eunuchs see Ayalon (1999), esp. 105–8. On Jahiz’s association of Byzantines with the creation of eunuchs see also Allouche (1938), 138–9. Jabbar (tenth and eleventh centuries AD) also refers to the Byzantines capturing Muslim children and castrating them, though he says the Byzantines then discarded them: see Ayalon (1999), 347–8, who wonders what happened to these children after they had been made eunuchs. 49 Antapod. 6.6. 50 Psellos, Chron. 5.15. The Scythians were bought as slaves. 51 For recognition of the fact that there were eunuchs in the empire who were Byzantines see for instance Guilland (1943), 200, (1967) I, 167; Ringrose (1994), 90 and n. 16; Kazhdan and McCormick (1997), 178–9; Tougher (1997a), 178–80. 52 Masudi, The Meadows of Gold, trans. Lunde and Stone (1989), 345. For comment on the passage see also Ayalon (1999), 209–14. 53 See for instance Carrier (2002), 63 and n. 64. 54 Synaxarion of Constantinople, AASS, Propylaeum Novembris, 721–4. The main focus is on Metrios, who became a saint. 55 Magdalino (1998), esp. 143–6. 56 On the Gongylios brothers see also Guilland (1943), 208 and 222–3, (1967) I, 172 and 181.

191

NOTES

57 For Bringas see also ODB, 325–6; Markopoulos (2004); Guilland (1943), 224, and 226–7, (1967) I, 182 and 183–4. 58 See also for example ODB, 1987. 59 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 390.71–3. For George and Constantine see for instance Guilland (1943), 228, (1967) I, 184–5. 60 The title of nobelissimos was one of those usually reserved for bearded men, and for members of the imperial family: see Oikonomidès (1972), 293. 61 Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 10.5–6. 62 See for example Morris (1981), 44. 63 Like Magdalino, some accept that Symeon was a eunuch: see for example Morris (1981), 44 n. 9; van der Aalst (1995), 326–7. Others are doubtful: see for instance McGuckin (1996), 19 and n. 4. 64 Niketas Stethatos, Life of Symeon the New Theologian, 147, ed. Hausherr (1928), 218. See also van der Aalst (1995), 327. 65 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 394.62. 66 Kedrenos, ed. Bekker (1838), 590. See also Stathakopoulos (2004), 227–8. 67 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 370.36–7; Guilland (1943), 210, (1967) I, 173. At the same place Skylitzes also records the appointment of a eunuch of the family of the Spondylai as doux of Antioch. 68 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 423.42–3, 428.81–3, 429.29–430.34. 69 Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 133.17; Guilland (1943), 230, (1967) I, 186. 70 See for example Guilland (1943), 209, (1967) I, 172–3. 71 See Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 315.78, French trans. Flusin (2003), 228 with Cheynet’s n. 54. 72 See Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 409.83–4; Guilland (1943), 211, (1967) I, 174. 73 See for example Cheynet (1996), 300. 74 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 479; Guilland (1943), 212, (1967) I, 175. 75 See for instance Cheynet (1996), 199 and n. 2. 76 For John of Side under Michael VII Doukas see Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 133.5–11 and 135.3–6. On John of Side see also Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), 49; Gouillard (1959–60), 38–41; Guilland (1943), 231, (1967) I, 186. 77 On Eustathios and Leo see for example Anna Komnene, Alexiad 7.2.9 and 10.4.5. 78 Kinnamos 7.2. 79 GMC 869. 80 See for instance Ayalon (1999), 305. Religious eunuchs in Byzantium will be considered in the following chapter. 81 PBE, Theodoros 67; PMBZ 7679. Guilland (1943), 207, (1967) I, 172, misidentifies him as Theodore Kamateros. 82 See Cheynet’s note in Flusin (2003), 63 n. 65. 83 If he was indeed a cleric before his court career, as accounts of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion indicate, this strengthens the case for him being a native Byzantine. 84 PBE, Leo 12; PMBZ 4405. 85 See Theoph. AM 6295. It is worth noting that Mango and Scott (1997), 655, do not include the descriptor ‘eunuch’ in their translation. On Leo see also PBE, Leo 14; PMBZ 4408. 86 PBE, Niketas 160; PMBZ 5424. 87 One source also asserts that he was a relative of the empress Eirene. 88 See PLRE 3, Leontius 29, p. 780. 89 Sophronius, Anacreontica, 17, PG 87.3, 3801–5. See PLRE 3, Narses 11, pp. 935–6. 90 Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai 26, ed. Cameron and Herrin (1984), 86.18–88.9. 91 Cameron and Herrin (1984), 200. 92 Magdalino (1998), 149–50. The source is Procop., Wars 8.3.17–21.

192

NOTES

93 Jones (1964), 852, which is cited by Magdalino (1998), 150 n. 46. The law was issued in 558, and is addressed to Marthanes, comes rei privatae. It includes the infamous detail that out of ninety males castrated, only three survived. 94 Ayalon (1979a), 70. Note, however, the view of Harries that repeated legislation indicates effectiveness (1999), 77–88 and 212. 95 These issues will be explored further in the following chapter. 96 It should be noted however that some of the children who became castrati are credited with voluntarily embracing the transformation. Also, although many castrati came from deprived backgrounds, there were exceptions, such as Farinelli and Velluti: see Heriot (1975), 38, 95, 189–90. It is possible that some castrati were indeed created due to accident or because of ill health. 97 See Blockley (1983), 98–9. This information is attributed to the historian Eunapius, a contemporary of Eutropius. 98 See for instance Ringrose (2003), esp. 186–93; Tougher (1997a), 177–9. 99 Leo Nikerites, the eunuch general from the reign of Alexios I Komnenos, is reported as having a young blood relation to whom he was greatly attached: Theodore Prodromos, Life of Meletios 31. 100 See Guilland (1943), 208–9, (1967) I, 172; Talbot and Sullivan (2005), 115 n. 64. Liud., De Leg. 43, alludes to the capture of Niketas by Arabs during a Byzantine expedition to Sicily. On this incident see also Leo the Deacon 4.7–8. 101 See for instance Mullett (2002), esp. 178. 102 See for instance Spatharakis (1976), 7–14; Evans and Wixom (1997), cat. 42, 88–90. 103 For a colour reproduction of this image see for instance Lowden (1997), plate 112, p. 203. It was Constantine who had founded the monastery of St Nicholas. The abbot of the monastery, Makar, is also depicted at the feet of St Nicholas. 104 Psellos, Chron. 5.10. This nephew had been commander of Thessalonike: Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 413.9–10. 105 Theoph. Cont. 390–1. No doubt the Phokades were equally keen to associate themselves with the powerful eunuch. The consolation to Constantine on the death of his sister, written by the patriarch Nicholas, survives: Ep. 47, ed. trans. Jenkins and Westerink (1973), 266–75. See also Jenkins (1965). 106 Nov. 26. For some discussion of the law and its effects see also Miller (2003), 169–71. 107 One may suspect that the emperor’s own desire for a son made him sympathetic towards eunuchs. However, Leo had a notable interest in eunuchs anyway: see Tougher (1997b), esp. 198–202; Guilland (1943), 221, (1967) I, 180. 108 Bryen. 4.40. For this instance see Macrides (2000), 5. For John see also Ringrose (2003), 139–40; Guilland (1943), 201, 213, 232, (1967) I, 168, 175, 187. 109 In connection with this it is interesting to refer to the case of two letters from the late tenth century of Leo the metropolitan of Synada and synkellos, which are addressed to John the ostiarios ‘of’ the protovestiarios Leo. John is usually identified as the nephew of Leo rather than his son because the office of protovestiarios was meant to be the preserve of eunuchs, and Leo seems to have been a known eunuch: see for instance Vinson (1985), 93. As ostiarios John may have been a eunuch too. 110 Nov. 98. 111 Leo is sensitive to the fact that not all married couples do have children, and again one may suspect a personal relevance. He makes the point that such couples hoped to have children, in contrast to eunuchs who knew that they could not possibly have children. 112 Leo’s law on castration: Nov. 60. Leo frowns on punishing castrators with castration. 113 Ed. Zepos and Zepos (1931), vol. 1, Appendix, no. 15, p. 638. For comment on this act see Angold (1991), 22 and n. 48; Guilland (1943), 229, (1967) I, 185. Angold notes that Isaac also paid for a candle to burn at the tomb of the monk Theodore, the

193

NOTES

ex-nobelissimos, and suggests that Theodore is the monastic name of John’s brother Constantine. Theodore’s tomb was at Nea Moni on Chios. 114 Angold (1991), 21–2. 115 Patterson (1982), for instance, fails to appreciate the differences between the later Roman and Byzantine empires. 6 EUNUCHS AND RELIGION 1 Eunuchs also played religious roles in Islam, though self-castration is not featured: see for instance Marmon (1995), who focuses especially on the ‘sacred society of eunuchs, established at the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad in Madina at some time in the mid-twelfth century’ (p. ix). She notes that as recently as 1990 ‘there were seventeen eunuchs serving in the sanctuary of Madina and fourteen serving in Mecca’. 2 See for instance Nock (1925). 3 Marmon (1995), 26, does emphasise the idea that eunuch guardians of Islamic sacred space were valued for their celibacy. 4 Nanda (1998), esp. 24–37. 5 It is also asserted however that the intersex are the real hijras: Nanda (1998), 97. 6 Nanda (1998), 73. 7 Justin, Apol. 1.29. 8 Engelstein (1999), 19. 9 Canon 1. For text and discussion see Hefele and Leclercq (1907), 528–32. For further discussion see also Caner (1997), esp. 407. The Apostolic Constitutions addressed the concern too. 10 Liud., De Leg. 63. 11 PL 143, 1003. See also Runciman (1955), 48. 12 Ayalon (1999), 107, 217–20, and (1979a), 75. Muqaddasi also reports that when Muslims raided the Byzantine empire they would release the castrated boys from the churches. One may suspect that they carried off such boys as booty. 13 Ed. Delehaye (1895), 136.4. However, Lemerle (1971), 243 n. 5, is sceptical about the reason given for Nikephoros’ castration, arguing that a secular career at court was what the parents really envisaged for their son. 14 Ed. Gautier (1980). 15 See for example Guilland (1943), 202–3, (1967) I, 168–9. For eunuch clergy see also Leclercq (1910), esp. col. 2371. For eunuchs and religion in Byzantium see also Wada (2006). 16 PBE, Ignatios 1; PMBZ 2666; ODB, 983–4. Strangely, PBE lists Ignatios as M for Male, not as E for Eunuch, though it is well known that he was castrated when his father the emperor Michael I fell from power in 813. 17 For Niketas see PBE, Niketas 1; PMBZ 5404. For Stephen see Theoph. Cont. 410. For Polyeuktos see ODB, 1696. Although Theophanes Continuatus does not specify that Polyeuktos was castrated, Leo the Deacon does: 2.11. Skylitzes tells us that Polyeuktos was a Constantinopolitan who had been made a eunuch by his parents: Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 244.90–2. For Eustratios see Anna Komnene, Alexiad 3.4.4. 18 For Germanos see PBE, Germanos 8; PMBZ 2298; ODB, 846–7. ODB accepts that Germanos was castrated. The late source is Zonaras 14.20.2–3. 19 For a reproduction of this image see Karlin-Hayter (2003), 155. For the church see Stylianou and Stylianou (1997), 53–75. 20 For Theophylact see ODB, 2068. The sources include Liud., De Leg. 62, and GMC 902. 21 Guilland (1943), 203, (1967) I, 169. 22 For Methodios see PBE, Methodios 1; PMBZ 4977; ODB, 1355. 23 Theoph. Cont. 158–9. PMBZ considers the story not very credible.

194

NOTES

24 Guilland (1943), 203, (1967) I, 169. 25 Niketas: Nikeph., Brev. 83. Stephen: Theoph. Cont. 410. Germanos: Nikeph., Brev. 46. 26 See PMBZ 4414. 27 See PBE, Anon 565; PMBZ, Anonymous 11648. 28 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 400.29. 29 See Chapter 5. 30 Ed. Gautier (1980), 297.4–5. 31 See Magdalino (1993a), esp. 51–63. 32 On John see for instance Laurent (1930). 33 See for instance Leclercq (1910). 34 Euseb., HE 7.32.3–4. See also Guyot (1980), 195; PLRE, vol. 1, Dorotheus 1, p. 269. Eusebius also identifies Melito the bishop of Sardis as a eunuch: HE 5.24. On the case of Melito see for instance the comments of Stevenson (2002), 123. 35 See Athanas., De Fug. 26, and Hist. Ar. 28; Theodoret, HE 2.19; Soc. 2.26.9–10. 36 Ed. Coleman-Norton (1928), 92 and 125. See also Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 58. 37 Soc. 6.15.15; Soz. 8.24.8–9. 38 See PLRE 3, Narses 11, pp. 935–6. 39 Evag., HE 3.32. See also Scholten (1998), 67 n. 109. 40 For some instances of eunuch monks in Byzantium see Guilland (1943), 204–5, (1967) I, 169–70. Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 72 n. 139, also note the existence of eunuch monks. They cite the abbot Cosmas from John Moschus (misidentified as John Climacus), Spiritual Meadow 40, and the monk who is revealed to be a eunuch in Leontius of Neapolis’ Life of John the Almsgiver 24. 41 John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow, chaps. 40, 173, 184. 42 Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, 86, ed. Schwartz (1939), 193. See also Patrich (1995), 337–8. 43 The phenomenon is particularly associated with the late antique period. Much has been written about the transvestite nuns, but Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 72, are unusual in emphasising their importance from the point of view of eunuchs. 44 See for instance Morris (1995), 39. 45 See Thomas and Hero, eds. (2000), 974. 46 See Dumitrescu (1987). 47 Bryen. 4.21. The eunuch was chosen because he was able and adroit (NTREXEv TE KAPERIDEJ‰¥), and he was with Alexios when he was confronting Basilakes. An. Komn. 1.7.5–9.3 identifies him as Ioannikios, though she does not reveal that he was a eunuch. Perhaps the fact that he was a eunuch monk led Anna to credit him with the role Bryennios ascribes to Symeon: see below. Nicholas Kataskepenos in his Life of Cyril Phileotes records that Anna Dalassene appointed a spiritual father for Alexios called Ignatios: Chap. 47.11, ed. Sargologos (1964), 233–4 (with comment at 460 n. 147). 48 See for example Magdalino (1981), 52 n. 10. 49 See also Tougher (2006). In the study of monasticism the eunuch monastery has received scant attention. For some recognition of their existence see for instance Guilland (1943), 204, (1967) I, 169; Simon (1994), 9. I know of no evidence which supports Simon’s assertion that eunuch monasteries were founded because of the considerable number of eunuch monks. 50 Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas 69, ed. Schwartz (1939), 171. Juliana Anicia was an elite woman with imperial connections, and is best known for building the church of St Polyeuctus in Constantinople: see for instance Harrison (1989). 51 Another text, the Letter of Paul Helladicus, ed. Lundström (1902), specifies that the monastery was in the second tower which had been built by Elias. The monastery of eunuchs also features in John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow, chaps. 135, 138, 165.

195

NOTES

52 Theoph. Cont. 364–5. The monastery is also mentioned in the Life of Euthymios the Patriarch, ed. Karlin-Hayter (1970), 63.18–22. Leo VI attempted to bury his third wife there, but the abbot Hierotheos refused him admission. Patria 4.33, asserts that it was originally built by Basil I, but enriched by Leo. 53 Life of Lazaros of Mount Galesion 100, AASS, Nov. III, 539. On Lazaros and his work see also Morris (1995), esp. 40–2. 54 He did however allow bearded monks to enter the monastery under certain conditions. The evidence for the monastery is the Diataxis of Attaleiates, the typikon having been lost. For the text see Gautier (1981), 17–130. An English translation is provided by Talbot in Thomas and Hero, ed. (2000), 333–70. For further discussion of the foundation see Lemerle (1977), 67–112; Thomas (1987), 179–85. 55 Theophylact, In Defence of Eunuchs, ed. Gautier (1980), 329.3–7. Some suggest that the Greek is ambiguous, and could mean that Symeon’s eunuch monastery was on Mt Athos, or that there were eunuch monasteries in Thessalonike and on Mt Athos, e.g. Ringrose (1999), 135 n. 35. However, I agree with Gautier (1980), 116, that Thessalonike is meant. 56 See for instance Gautier (1980), 115–16; Morris (1995), 279–80; Ringrose (1999), 134–6. I will return to Symeon below. 57 Guilland (1943), 204, (1967) I, 169. On the monastery of the Katharoi see also Honigmann (1939), 617–19. 58 Life of Antony the Younger, ed. Halkin (1944), 189 and 212. 59 See for example Janin (1975), 132–4; Hergès (1898/99). 60 Hergès (1898/99), 231, suggests that the name of the monastery should be ‘Augaroi’, meaning ‘Effeminates’. 61 See for example Boulhol and Cochelin (1992); de Gaiffier (1957). 62 Lactantius, DMP 15.2; Eusebius, HE 8.6.1 and 8.6.5. Rufinus, HE 8.6, describes Dorotheus as ‘cubiculii regii praepositus’. See also PLRE 1, Dorotheus 2, p. 270, and Gorgonius 1, p. 298. 63 Soz. 2.9.6–13 and 2.11.4. Sozomen apparently draws on original documents for the persecution of Shapur. On eunuch martyrs in Persia see also the comments of Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 70. On Ousthazades see also Peeters (1910) and (1925), esp. 264–8. 64 See Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 62–4; de Gaiffier (1957), 36–46. 65 Ed. Gautier (1980), 327.8–14. 66 See for example Ringrose (1999), 133–4; Tougher (2004a), which concentrates especially on Ignatios the Younger. 67 The most familiar version of his Life is usually attributed to the known historical and literary figure Niketas David the Paphlagonian: PG 105, 487–574. For authorship by Niketas David see for example Jenkins (1965b). For Niketas David in general see for instance Karlin-Hayter (1970), 217–19. 68 See also Theoph. Cont. 20. 69 For the encomium see Gelzer (1886). 70 For the text see Laurent (1934). 71 Niketas’ Life does not survive in complete form, and has to be supplemented by short notices: see Papachryssanthou (1968). 72 Ed. Gautier (1980), 303.10–26. One wonders, though, how much say the children would have had in their castration. Examples from the case of the Skoptsy suggest that castration could be enforced on children: see Engelstein (1999), 10. On the other hand, in the case of the castrati there are references to children being willing to undergo castration in order to become castrato singers: see for example Heriot (1975), 43, 142; Clapton (2004), 15. 73 The defence of castration on the grounds that it is akin to pruning a vine is mirrored in the case of circumcision. In his report on his visit to Constantinople in 839–840 the Arab ambassador from Spain Yahya al-Ghazzal records that the empress Theodora

196

NOTES

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

asked him why Arabs circumcised themselves and he answered that it was like pruning a vine to make it more vigorous: see Lévi-Provençal (1937), esp. 12–13 n.1. I thank Judith Herrin for this reference. Patrich (1995) is a useful guide. Life of Cyriacus 4, ed. Schwartz (1939), 224; Life of Sabas 7, ed. Schwartz (1939), 91; Life of Euthymius 31, ed. Schwartz (1939), 50. Life of Sabas 29, ed. Schwartz (1939), 114. Life of Sabas 7 and 69, ed. Schwartz (1939), 91 and 171. Patrich (1995), 274. On the concern in Byzantine typika see for example Galatariotou (1987), esp. 121–4. The typikon of Athanasios the Athonite also banned eunuchs from the lavra: see Thomas and Hero, ed. (2000), 263. Acts of Protaton, ed. Papachryssanthou (1975), 7.101–6, 8.45–53, and 13.71–2. The story of Symeon is related in the Paradosis, ed. Papachryssanthou (1986), 59–75. For discussion see for example Morris (1995), 279–80; Ringrose (2003), 125–6. It is not clear whether the three disciples were eunuchs too. The Diegesis merike, a collection of material relating to scandals on the Holy Mountain in the reign of Alexios I Komnenos, includes reference to the presence of eunuchs on Mt Athos, and it has been suggested that this could be connected with the figure of Symeon the Sanctified: Morris (1995), 280; Angold (1995), 280–3. Unusually, Manuel II in his chyrsobull-typikon does explain the ban on accepting eunuchs as servants or novices: ed. Papachryssanthou (1975), 13.71–2. He asserts that it is not aimed at eunuchs and the beardless per se, but is to prevent women disguised as eunuchs and the beardless from entering male monasteries. See for instance Galatariotou (1987), 121–4. See for example Chitty (1995), 66–7. See for instance Hester (2005), esp. 18–24. This will be discussed more fully in the following chapter. See for instance the comments of T. F. Matthews on Leo the sakellarios in Evans and Wixom, ed. (1997), 20. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius 28, ed. Schwartz (1939), 45. Life of Euthymius 30, ed. Schwartz (1939), 49. Gabriel was also a priest of the church of the Resurrection. Patrich (1995), 264. This was the case with the eunuchs of Juliana Anicia, who ended up in a monastery of their own. Ed. Papachryssanthou (1975), 7.101–6. Ed. Papachryssanthou (1975), 8.45–53. See Thomas and Hero, ed. (2000), 800 and 824. This is suggested by Greenfield (2000), 189–90 n. 435. AASS, Nov. III, chap. 100, 539. And see also Tougher (1997b), esp. 201–2. Moran (2002), 105. See also Witt (2002), 246. Ed. Gautier (1981), 65.791–7. Ed. Gautier (1981), 91.1200–1, 91.1225, 95.1264. Ed. Gautier (1981), 99.1309–11. If he is the same monk described as the blessed lord John, notarios, mystikos and epi tou koitonos: ed. Gautier (1981), 129.1777–8; Lemerle (1977), 90 n. 42. This is also indicated, for instance, by Athanasia sending her eunuchs to male monasteries when she became a nun: Life of Matrona of Perge 47. These contradictory concepts will be explored more fully in the following chapter. Marmon (1995), 64, also notes that contradictory concepts could exist about eunuchs in the Islamic context.

197

NOTES

103 It is possible that Christ was also drawing on the idea of eunuchs as loyal servants, as suggested by Deirdre Good in a paper delivered at a conference on Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond held in Cardiff in 1999. 104 Leontius of Neapolis, Life of John the Almsgiver 23. 105 See for example de Gaiffier (1957), 45; Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 73. 106 On mystical castration see for instance Ashbrook Harvey (1984), 90; Murray (1999); Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 72 and n. 142; Kuefler (2001), 271–2. The idea of mystical castration was found in both eastern and western Christendom. 107 See for instance Morris (1995), 32 and n. 4. Michael Attaleiates asserts in his Diataxis that he decided to support monks rather than priests because the former were pleasing to God and to him because of their angelic lifestyle: ed. Gautier, 39.353–5. 108 On the confusion of angels and eunuchs see for instance Ringrose (2003), esp. 142–62; Sidéris (2002), 166–8. I shall explore the issue further in the following chapter. Marmon (1995), 46, also notes the association between eunuchs and angels in the Islamic context. 109 See for instance Talbot (1998), 121; Guilland (1943), 205, (1967) I, 170. 110 Just., Nov. 133, 5. 111 For this text see ed. Gautier (1985), 19–155. 112 Ed. Gautier (1985), 54–7. 113 Ed. Gautier (1985), chaps. 15 and 16. 114 Ed. Gautier (1985), 106–7. It should be noted, however, that despite the preference for eunuchs over bearded men, access to the nunnery was generally forbidden to eunuchs as it was to other men: ed. Gautier (1985), 144–5. 115 For Theophylact see Mullett (1997). 116 Ed. Gautier (1980), 367–9. 117 See for instance Ringrose (1994), esp. 102–9, and (2003), esp. 194–202; Simon (1994); Mullett (2002); Tougher (2005). The text has played a major part in Ringrose’s thinking about Byzantine eunuchs and gender identity. I will discuss the text further in the following chapter. 118 Ed. Gautier (1980), 329.9–15. For comment on this aspect of the eunuch’s argument see Mullett (2002), esp. 190. 119 See Ringrose (1999) and (2003), esp. 111–27. See also the comments of Vinson (1998), 510–11; Mullett (2002), 187. 120 Ep. 115. 121 And not just in the Byzantine empire, as Ringrose asserts. The following chapter will engage fully with her notion that there was a shift in eunuch identity in the course of the history of the Byzantine empire, symbolised by Theophylact of Ochrid’s In Defence of Eunuchs. 122 Letter of Paul Helladicus, ed. Lundström (1902). 123 PG 105, 501. For comment see Tougher (2004a), 101. 124 Ed. Papachryssanthou (1968), 341. For comment see Tougher (2004a), 103. 125 Ed. Laurent (1934), 36.15. For comment see Gaul (2002), 202–3; Tougher (2004a), 103. 126 Ed. Gautier (1980), 329.15–21. On Theophylact’s stance see the comments of Mullett (2002), 190. 127 See for instance Dunlap (1924), 261–4. 128 Athanas., Hist. Ar. 35–7. Theodoret, HE 2.13, also reports that Eusebius attended a meeting between Constantius II and Liberius. 129 The Ecclesiastical History of the Arian Philostorgius survives in a summary produced by Photios, but Eusebius is still treated in a hostile manner, due to his treacherous role in the death of Gallus: 4.1. The linking of eunuchs and heresy was it seems a more general strategy: for instance the practice of self-castration by such groups as Valesians and Eunomians is emphasised by authors opposed to them. See for example Epiphanius of Salamis, Pan. 58.1.4, and the comments of Caner (1997), 406–7. An

198

NOTES

130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

157 158 159 160 161

imperial law of AD 389 deals with Eunomian eunuchs, asserting that they can neither make wills nor inherit by a will: Theod. Cod. 16.5.17. For Eusebius as an agent of Arianism in the palace see for instance Soc. 2.2.4–6. Pall., Hist. Laus. 63, reports that Eusebius colluded with Arian bishops against Athanasius. See for instance PLRE 2, Misael, pp. 763–4. Theoph. AM 6272. Theophanes reports that the others became excellent monks. PBE considers them to be eunuchs: see for instance Iakobos 1 and Theophanes 2. See for instance Ross (1958), and also the comments of Lauxtermann (2003), 162–5. On the reliquary see for instance Ševčenko (1994); Pentcheva (2007). A chalice and paten commissioned by Basil ended up in the treasury of St Marks in Venice. For the Leo Bible see for instance Spatharakis (1976), 7–14; Evans and Wixom, ed. (1997), no. 42, 88–90. See Buckton and Hetherington (2006). Weyl Carr (1982), 64–5. Another manuscript possibly produced by a eunuch patron is the Coislin 79, a copy of the homilies of John Chrysostom. For the eunuch associations of this artefact see Dumitrescu (1987). I will discuss this manuscript in the following chapter. Life of Daniel the Stylite 89. It may be significant that the eunuch was attached to an angel, given the parallels that existed between eunuchs and angels. See for instance PLRE 2, Gratissimus, p. 519. Anth. Graec. 1.5. John of Ephesus, HE 1.39; Theoph. AM 6063. This was a different Narses to the famous general: see PLRE 3, Narses 4, 930–1. Guilland (1943), 204, (1967) I, 169, notes that Narses was also credited with founding charitable institutions. Epigrams 113, PG 99, 1808. Theoph. Cont. 375. The monastery also features in the story of Samonas’ attempted flight: Theoph. Cont. 369. Psellos, Chron. 1.20. The monastery was reduced by Basil II after he exiled the eunuch. Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 396.28–32. Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 148.4–5. See also Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), 51. PLP 8597. For the monastery see Janin (1975), 294; Laurent (1953). Theoph. Cont. 366. Castrati could also seek retirement in monasteries: see for instance Heriot (1975), 174 (the case of Pistocchi), 222–3 (the case of Balatri). Castrati could play a musical role in monasteries. On disgraced eunuchs being forced to enter monasteries see also Guilland (1943), 204, (1967) I, 169. Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 423.54–5. Ringrose (1999), 134, comments on court eunuchs who willingly turn to the monastic life for spiritual reasons, but sees it as a late phenomenon associated with the transformed status of eunuchs in Byzantium. I shall consider this theory in the following chapter. Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 398.84–7. He entered the famous monastery of Stoudios. This case is noted by Guilland (1943), 204, (1967) I, 170. Though Symeon’s decision may have been influenced by political difficulties: see for example Magdalino (1998), 145. See for instance Morris (1995), 279; Ringrose (2003), 125–7. See Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 464.13–19; Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 25.16–18. Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 248.9–249.23.

199

NOTES

162 Psellos, Chron. 4.14. 163 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 401.67–80. 164 Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 29.3–6; Kekaumenos, Strategikon 28; Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 458.50. Skylitzes does not identify Basil as a eunuch. On Basil the eunuch see for instance Stephenson (2000), 92; Pérez Martín (2002), 250 n. 96. 165 Angold (1995), 37, sees the appointment of John the bishop of Side as chief minister of Michael VII, together with the appointment of Michael the bishop of Neocaesarea as finance minister, as ‘scarcely precedented’ and a sign that the empire desperately needed the support of the church. 166 So Bryen. 4.27. However, as was noted above, Anna Komnene identifies the monk as Ioannikios. On this problem and the identity of Symeon see for instance Gautier (1975), 294–5 n. 6; Kazhdan (1989). 7 IMAGES AND IDENTITIES OF EUNUCHS 1 See especially Ringrose (2003). 2 See for example Hopkins (1978), 193–6; Guyot (1980), 157–76; Tougher (1999a). As has already been noted in this book, hostility towards eunuchs is found in many other times and places too. Strikingly, Heriot (1975), 56, says of the castrati that ‘they formed an obvious Aunt Sally, like the Jews under Hitler, and everything was thrown at them’. 3 Amm. Marc. 18.4.3. 4 Amm. Marc. 22.3.10–12. 5 Amm. Marc. 16.7.7. 6 In Eutr. I and II. On these see especially Long (1996). 7 For example In Eutr. I.181–228. 8 For example HA 18.66.3–4, and 20.24.2–3. 9 Ep. 115. 10 For comment on the letter see for instance Hopkins (1978), 195; Guyot (1980), 171–2. 11 See also Tougher (2005). 12 In Eutr. I.61–77. 13 In Eutr. I.29. 14 In Eutr. I. 240 and 272–6. 15 In Eutr. I. 463–5 and 497–9. 16 In Eutr. II.223–5. 17 In Eutr. I.466–7. 18 Amm. Marc. 27.12.6. 19 PG 30, 793–6. For comment see for instance Rouselle (1988), 123. 20 Ed. Lundström (1902), 17–23. 21 It is interesting to note that the castrato Balatri records that he was asked if he was male or female by the Cham of Tartary: see for instance Heriot (1975), 208. 22 Pan. Lat. 3.19.4. 23 Pan. 58.3.1. 24 HA 18.23.7. 25 See especially Ringrose (1994) and (2003), but note the transformation of her argument. Initially Ringrose contended that the Byzantines came to view eunuchs simply as men. 26 Ed. Gautier (1980), 289–331. For comment on the text see also for instance Mullett (2002); Tougher (2005). 27 Ed. Gautier (1980), Poem 13, 367–9; Ringrose (2003), 200. 28 Ed. Gautier (1980), 309.14–15. 29 Ringrose (2003), 15–16 and 39. 30 I will consider these in more detail below.

200

NOTES

31 Ed. Gautier (1980), Poem 13, 367–9. 32 For example, Ringrose (2003), 202. 33 This has been indicated especially by Boulhol and Cochelin (1992) and Sidéris (2002). I will discuss their views further below. 34 Amm. Marc. 16.7.4–8. Woods (1998) argues that Ammianus was in fact deceived as to the true nature of Eutherius. 35 Amm. Marc. 16.7.8–10. Ammianus is the sole source for the story of Menophilus. On Menophilus see also Guyot (1980), 216. 36 Cyropaed. 7.3.14–17. 37 Polyb. 22.22. This assessment of Aristonicus is included in the Suda, a Byzantine reference work dating to the tenth century AD. For Aristonicus see also Guyot (1980), 182–3. 38 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992). 39 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 64. 40 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 65. Life of Melania the Younger 11. 41 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 66 and 68–9. 42 Sidéris (2002). 43 Sidéris (2002), 164–5. 44 Sidéris (2002), 165–6. 45 Anth. Graec. 16.33. 46 In laudem Iustini 3.220–30 and 4.368–73. 47 In laudem Iustini 3.214–19. 48 Anth. Graec. 1.96. 49 They do, however, recognise a softening of attitude towards eunuchs in the Bible: Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 59–62. Stevenson (2002) also acknowledges this, as does Sidéris (2002), 163. 50 Briant (2002), 268–72. 51 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 64–5. Another evil eunuch they mention is the Indian Arion in the Passion of Manuel, Sabel and Ismael, though he served at the Persian court. 52 Boulhol and Cochelin (1992), 49. 53 Jones (1964), 570. 54 Agath. 1.16.1. 55 Procop., Wars 6.13.16. 56 Procop., Wars 4.20.33. 57 Amm. Marc. 27.10.11 and 30.6.4. It could perhaps be imagined that Ammianus is implying that Valens’ eunuch took the opportunity of absconding. 58 One finds the etymology also in the nomocanon of Nikon of the Black Mountain: Gautier (1980), 308 n. 34. 59 Pan. 58.4.3. The idea is also alluded to elsewhere, e.g. Soz. 2.9.11, where one of the ‘most loyal’ eunuchs of the Persian Shah Shapur II refers to the goodwill he has born the Shah’s family since his youth. 60 Ep. 50. For comment see for example Vinson (1998), 488–9. 61 Ed. Kolias (1939), Letter 25, 121–7, esp. 121.12–21. On the embassy see Tougher (1997b), 200. Tabari names the eunuch as Basil, while Kolias (1939), 56 n. 2, suggests that it was Sinoutis. Choirosphaktes’ attack on Basil/Sinoutis was prompted by the fact that the eunuch had slandered him which had contributed to his exile. 62 See Morgan (1954); Garland (2006), 170–1. 63 Kedrenos, ed. Bekker (1839), 29. This remark is attributed to Chrysaorios. 64 Ed. Mazal (1967), 184. This is cited by Gaul (2002), 206. He notes hostile depictions of eunuchs in other Byzantine romances, but positive ones too. The late Byzantine period will be considered in the following chapter. 65 Ed. Laurent (1934), 36. Gaul (2002), 201–3, comments on this case too. 66 See the comments of Talbot and Sullivan (2005), 30.

201

NOTES

67 Leo the Deacon 1.2. 68 Leo the Deacon 3.3. On the hostile attitude to Bringas see also Markopoulos (2004), IV, esp. 4. 69 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 324.48–51. This echoes what Agathias (1.7.8) reports that Leutharis and Butilinus said about Narses, that they were surprised that the Goths so dreaded ‘a puny little man, a eunuch of the bedchamber, used to a soft and sedentary existence’ (ÐNDR­RI¿NTIUALAMHP¿LONSKIATRAFqQTEKA‡BROD‰AITON): ed. Keydell (1967), 19, trans. Frendo (1975), 16. The phrasing was also used by Leo the Deacon (Talbot and Sullivan (2005), 59 n. 30), so Skylitzes may be copying Leo rather than Agathias. 70 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 370.24–8. 71 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 381.25–34. It should be noted that the critical interpretation of the eunuch’s actions is an interpolation found in only one of the manuscripts of the chronicle. 72 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 408.55–63, and 412.66–7. 73 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 237.18.20. 74 Attal., Hist., ed. Pérez Martín (2002), 29.18–21. This is the eunuch Basil, who was also a monk. 75 Attaleiates is notorious for his hostility to the eunuch Nikephoritzes: see for instance Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), 51–7. 76 Bryen. 4.32. 77 The significance of the phrase is obscure. Gautier, ed. (1975), 302 n. 1, notes Ducange’s suggestion that it referred to the manner of urination of eunuchs. However, since most eunuchs in Byzantium retained their penises this seems unlikely. 78 Bryen. 4.31. 79 Bryen. 4.37–40. 80 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 368.83–4 and 373.21–374.22. 81 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 393.38–40. 82 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 438.63–5 and 464.14–19. 83 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 315.74–80. See also Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 272.79–80. 84 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 392.17–18. 85 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 351.87–9. Unsurprisingly, Sergios is met in the context of a special mission. He was sent by Basil II to persuade a group of Bulgarians in the fortress Melnikos to give themselves up to the emperor. 86 Skyl., ed. Thurn (1973), 472.30–4. 87 Bryen. 2.16. See also Polemis (1968), 64. 88 Theoph. Cont. 3.23, ed. Bekker (1838), 114–16. 89 Talbot and Sullivan (2005), 70 n. 6, 143 n. 8. Leo the Deacon is also positive about the eunuch patriarch Polyeuktos, e.g. 2.11. 90 See for instance Markopoulos (2004), IV. 91 Theoph. Cont., ed. Bekker (1838), 466.14–18. 92 Theoph. Cont., ed. Bekker (1838), 475.2; Theoph. Cont., ed. Bekker (1838), 479.10. 93 For views of Nikephoritzes see Kazhdan and Franklin (1984), 51–7. On this eunuch see also Lemerle (1977), 300–2. 94 Strategikon 74. 95 Bryen. 2.1. 96 10.11. 97 Chron. 4.12–14. 98 See Gaul (2002), 207–8. He discusses in particular the eunuch Vetanos who features in the novel Livistros and Rhodamne. For further comment see Chapter 8. 99 Though it was also seen that there could be criticism of eunuchs in this sphere. 100 See especially Ringrose (2003), chap. 7, 142–62; Sidéris (2002), 166–8; Maguire (1997b), 255–6; Maltese (1990), 122–6; Mango (1980), 151–5. Peers (2001), 187,

202

NOTES

101 102 103 104 105 106 107

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

124 125 126 127 128 129

notes the parallel between angels and eunuchs, but unfortunately chooses not to explore it. Life of John the Almsgiver 52.34–46. PG 105, 533–6. The story is told also in Gen. 4.21. See for instance Mango (1980), 151–5; Sidéris (2002), 167–8. Timarion 33. Of course, kGGELOQ literally means ‘messenger’. Interestingly Peers (2001), 109, characterises angels as ‘a kind of third body – in nature somewhere between God and humanity, but with a nature not fully determinable’. The relevance of these views to eunuchs is obvious. Oneirocriticon of Achmet 10, ed. Drexl (1925), 6.7–14. See also Mavroudi (2002), 268–9. The meaning of dreaming of an angel was positive, foretelling good news. The fact that eunuchs could be identified with angels and their message of success adds to the favourable impression of them. See for example James and Tougher (2005), 160. Sidéris (2002), 166. Sidéris (2002), 168, comments on the uncertainty. On the iconography of angels see also Mango (1984). Mango (1984), esp. 55. Engelstein (1999), 18 and 191. Engelstein (1999), 149–50. Michael was mounted on a white horse, which symbolised the purity of castration. Of course, this dimension may have been appreciated earlier. Beautiful voices are associated with angels generally. One thinks, for instance, of Charlotte Church’s Voice of an Angel (1999). See for instance Barbier (1996), 17, 30, 50, 136 and 234. Barbier (1996), 239; Clapton (2004), 49–50. Mullett (2002), esp. 183. Theophylact can, however, imagine others reading the text: ed. Gautier (1980), 291.17–18 and 30–5. Mullett (2002), 181, observes that the critic is cut short, and may have been able to offer further arguments. This is noteworthy, as it indicates a view that eunuchs were not inherently feminised. Ed. Gautier (1980), 317.7–8. Ed. Gautier (1980), 297.1–4. On the negative view of the oriental eunuch in the Greek imperial novel see for example Guyot (1980), 72–7. Ed. Gautier (1980), 303.10–22. In connection with this it is interesting to note the depiction of Bagoas in the Bagoas of Nikephoros Basilakes, a prosecution speech (though possibly just one of rhetorical invention) written in 1157: see Magdalino (1993a), esp. 54. Bagoas is described as the son of a poor fisherman and a ‘Scythian’ woman. Basilakes alleges that as a youth he had a homosexual affair, and in order to keep his lover and his good looks he had himself castrated. It is notable, as Magdalino observes, that ‘Basilakes does not revile Bagoas for being a eunuch’ but rather for his self-castration. Magdalino suggests that Bagoas might be identifiable with Soterichos Panteugenos. Mullett (2002), esp. 186–91. Ed. Gautier (1980), 329.15–20. Ringrose (2003), esp. chap. 3, 67–86. For the Chinese empire also see Tsai (1996), 13, 41–2, who discusses the palace school for eunuchs in the Ming period. Toledano (1984), 384. In addition to Ringrose (2003) see also Tougher (2004b), 75–6; Tougher and James (2005), 156–7. On the dress of Byzantine eunuchs see also the reflections of Kalamara (2004), esp. 280–5, who suggests that there was a eunuch dress code in the eleventh century.

203

NOTES

130 The basin referred to the duties the holder of this title was expected to perform. 131 For the details of the eunuch titles and their insignia see ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 125.22–129.10. 132 The description of the insignia of the bearded protospatharios is at ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 93.12–14. 133 See for instance Tsai (1996), 32; Penzer (1965), 120 and 130–1. 134 For clothing as a marker of status rather than gender see James and Tougher (2005), 157. 135 Ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 89.10–99.3. 136 Ed. Oikonomidès (1972), 137.18. 137 Leo VI, Nov. 98. 138 For the hijras as a third gender see Nanda (1998). Of course, hijras have many distinctive features setting them apart from Byzantine eunuchs which need to be appreciated, but these do not undermine the general parallel. 139 See especially Chapter 2. 140 Though these may raise complications of their own. 141 As Ringrose (1999), 133–4 n. 28, observes, a detailed study of his writings would need to be undertaken to see if there are any indicators that he was a eunuch. One might also wonder if Niketas David was a eunuch: he was from Paphlagonia, and his uncle Paul the abbot of the monastery of St Phokas was also from Paphlagonia and was sakellarios, so may have been a eunuch himself: Life of Euthymios the Patriarch, ed. Karlin-Hayter (1970), 105.14–17. 142 For the image see especially Mango and Hawkins (1972), 9–11, 28–30. 143 The order to destroy these images is preserved in the Theod. Cod. 9.40.17. 144 Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai 7 (Hilarion) and 26 (Plato). Cameron and Herrin (1984), 180 and 200, note that Hilarion and Plato are otherwise unknown. For Hilarion see also PLRE 1, Hilarion, p. 434; Guyot (1980), p. 210; Scholten (1995), p. 211. For Plato see also PLRE 2, Plato 2, p. 881; Scholten (1995), 251. 145 The story that the statue of Plato was put up to warn of the fate of those who opposed the emperor (Plato was burned to death) seems far-fetched. The important point is that in the eighth century a statue could be identified as that of a eunuch, and one who had been a chamberlain. 146 See for instance Camiz (1988), esp. 183. 147 For a list of portraits of Tenducci see Highfill, Burnim and Langhans, ed. (1991), 397–8. 148 For Rauzzini see for instance Heriot (1956), 175–7. 149 See especially Heartz (1984) and (1990). 150 For discussion of the Bible and the image of Leo see for instance Spatharakis (1976), 7–14; Rodley (1994), 184–6; Evans and Wixom, ed. (1997), 88–90; Lowden (1997), 201–4; Sidéris (2002), 168–9. The Bible was in two volumes, but only the first survives. 151 See for instance James and Tougher (2005), 156. 152 As discussed in Chapter 5. 153 For the manuscript and the images see for instance Spatharakis (1976), 107–18; Dumitrescu (1987); Evans and Wixom, ed. (1997), 207–9; Maguire (1997b), 248–9. 154 Dumitrescu (1987), 41. 155 Perhaps this was an image of John of Side, who was protoproedros early in the reign of Michael VII. John of Side also featured in the administration of Nikephoros III. 156 His status as a monk is revealed by his dress as well as by an inscription. 157 Though positioning on the left was not unknown. 158 Some challenge the automatic interpretation of beardless figures in Byzantine art as eunuchs. See for example Bjornholt and James (2007). They are right to draw attention to the interest of the depiction of known eunuchs with beards (such as in the Madrid Skylitzes). However, the depiction of an adult male as beardless in a society

204

NOTES

159 160 161 162 163 164 165

166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

176 177 178 179 180 181 182

183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

where beards for men were de rigueur leaves one few alternatives but to conclude that a eunuch is being shown. On the angels on the reliquary and the issue of the analogy between angels and eunuchs see Pentcheva (2007), 117–19. Pentcheva (2007), 119. See Buckton and Hetherington (2006). The title of proedros had been created for Basil Lekapenos by Nikephoros Phokas, but was not just held by eunuchs. Though Buckton and Hetherington (2006), 31, describe him as ‘bare-headed’. Buckton and Hetherington (2006), 30, opine that Constantine ‘must have possessed a highly original artistic vision’. A further possible case of self-representation of eunuchs is that of the portraits of the donors Eustrates and John in the church of Ayvali köy in Cappadocia: see for instance Kalamara (2004), esp. 280–4, and Jolivet-Lévy (1991), 151–4, esp. 153–4. Eustrates and John are depicted as beardless, though they may just be youths. See also Tougher (forthcoming); Carrier (2002), esp. 62–3 on eunuchs. See PBE, Synesios 2; PMBZ 7217. See for instance Herrin (1995), 70. See for instance Ciggaar (1996), 207. See below. See for instance Ciggaar (1996), 266. See for instance Ayalon (1999), 104. Pachym. 5.6. On this episode see Failler (1981). On Liudprand and his embassies see for instance Leyser (1988) and Schummer (1992). It is perhaps unsurprising that the embassy did not go well, given the difficult political circumstances of the time. Otto I was laying claim to the imperial title, and campaigning in Southern Italy. As such, he was infringing on what the Byzantines considered their territory. De Leg. 29. De Leg. 43. The fate of the eunuch was to be sold for a high price. He was the patrikios Niketas, brother of the protovestiarios Michael. De Leg. 54. De Leg. 63. Shortly before this outburst Liudprand had recorded the fact that Romanos I Lekapenos had made his son, the eunuch Theophylact, patriarch of Constantinople: De Leg. 62. It seems odd that Liudprand does not make much of the eunuch status of Basil the parakoimomenos, who was one of the key court men to quiz him initially: De Leg. 15. Perhaps he was more circumspect with regard to Basil since he was related to the Macedonian house, the emperors of which Liudprand displays loyalty towards. Antapod. 3.26. The eunuch in question is Constantine the Paphlagonian. Antapod. 6.4. Solomon is said to have been returning from missions to Spain and Saxony. Antapod. 6.5. One is put in mind of the experience of guests on the Channel 4 television programme So Graham Norton, who are escorted to the host by two hunks. Antapod. 6.5. Though eunuchs do not always appear in such accounts. For further consideration of this see Tougher (forthcoming). Deeds of the Franks 1.9. On Fulcher’s comments see also Ciggaar (1996), 170. De Prof. 4 26v, ed. Berry (1948), 68. Ciggaar (1996), 50–1, comments on how some westerners found the music of the orthodox church attractive. See for instance Carrier (2002), 61–2.

205

NOTES

8 THE TWILIGHT OF THE BYZANTINE EUNUCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

Guilland (1943), 234, (1967) I, 188. Guilland (1943), 232, (1967) I, 187. Guilland (1943), 213–14, (1967) I, 175–6. For instance Lemerle (1977), 300. See for example Kazhdan and Epstein (1985), 69–70; Kazhdan and McCormick (1997), 179–80. Ringrose (2003). Gaul (2002). Guilland (1943), 213–14 and 232–4, (1967) I, 175–6 and 187–9. Ana. Komn. 6.10.9, 10.4.5, 11.10.9 and 13.1.1. Ana. Komn. 7.2.9. However, the portrait of Leo Nikerites in Theodore Prodromos’ Life of Meletios 31, is ‘less than flattering’: see Armstrong (1996), 230. Describing an episode where Nikerites weeps when telling a monk about a sick relative, Theodore notes that eunuchs naturally tend to cry. Nikerites vainly hoped that his relative would recover, despite Meletios’ assertion that he would not. Ana. Komn. 8.9.7. PBW, Leon 15008. For Nikerites as doux of Cyprus see Weyl Carr (1982), 64. Kazhdan and Epstein (1985), 70. The only eunuch Zonaras mentions in his account of the reign of Alexios is the patriarch Eustratios Garidas, and he does not even identify the patriarch as a eunuch. See also the comments of Kazhdan and McCormick (1997), 180. For John II Komnenos, Guilland can only identify the eunuch John the mystikos, who appears in the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 204.3–4. Kinnamos 6.6 and 7.2. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 318.22–7. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 260.42–6. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 269.85–90. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 245.83–7. Guilland (1943), 233, (1967) I, 188; Kazhdan and Constable (1982), 136; Cheynet (1996), 442. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 503.49–51. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 511.53–4. George Oinaiotes is perhaps to be identified with George the barbarian: Niketas Choniates, ed. van Dieten (1975), 479.41 app. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 461.26–30 and 534.81–2. Ed. Lampros (1880), 125. See also Cheynet (1996), 442 n.92. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 508.89–93. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 550.26–31. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 563.70–7. Ana. Komn. 14.5.1. Ana. Komn. 13.1.7 and 13.1.8. Perhaps Basil Psyllos is to be identified with the eunuch Basil the nobelissimos who was an ambassador with Constantine the notary for Richard Siniscard (Richard the Seneschal, a nephew of Robert Guiscard), and who signed the Treaty of Devol: Ana. Komn. 13.12.28. Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 258.17–19, 488.11–13, 530.67–8 and 540.37–9. Ed. Gautier (1974); trans. Jordan in Thomas and Hero, ed. (2000), 743. Ana. Komn. 15.11.13. Ana. Komn. 8.9.6. George Tornikes, Funeral Oration on Anna Komnene, ed. Darrouzès (1970), 263.17–19.

206

NOTES

36 See for instance Magdalino (1993b), 510 n. 3. The eunuch commissioned a consolatory speech by Manganeios Prodromos on the death of Maria’s husband Constantine Kamytzes. 37 See Chapter 6 above. 38 According to Nikephoros Bryennios, though he is contradicted by his wife Anna Komnene. On this conflict of opinion see for instance Kazhdan (1989). 39 Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 124.17–19. 40 Nik. Chon., ed. van Dieten (1975), 219.72–3. 41 See Magdalino (1993a). 42 Moran (2002), 107–108; Ehrhard (1932), 54. 43 Guilland (1943), 233, (1967) I, 188. The study of the government and society of the empire of Nicaea by Angold (1975) barely mentions eunuchs. 44 Pachym. 6.32; Guilland (1943), 214, (1967) I, 176. 45 Pachym. 7.37; Guilland (1943), 234, (1967) I, 188. 46 Kantak. 1.13, 1.19 and 1.24; Gaul (2002), 209. As Gaul (2002), 204 and 214 n. 46, comments, Kantakouzenos’ depiction of Kallikrenites would merit further study. It is striking that in the account of the first embassy Kantakouzenos plays with several ideas about eunuchs. Kallikrenites is described as a messenger (kGGELOQ), thus drawing on the parallel between eunuchs and angels. Later Kallikrenites reassures Andronikos that God’s angel will advance before him. In addition, the goodwill (E~NO‰AQ) of the eunuch towards Andronikos III is referred to, alluding to one of the etymologies of the word eunuch. Finally, Kallikrenites cites the Old Testament story of Daniel being saved from the lions’ den. Here he is thinking of the salvation of Andronikos, but it is striking that Byzantines could consider Daniel to have been a eunuch himself. 47 Pachym. 13.24; Guilland (1943), 234, (1967) I, 188–9. 48 Kantak. 3.36; Gaul (2002), 204–205. As Gaul (2002), 214 n. 50, notes, Kantakouzenos implies that some of the named ministers (Alexios Apokaukos, John Gavalas, Manuel Kinnamos) were eunuchs. Since Kinnamos was a treasurer (and a mystikos) he might seem an obvious suspect, but it appears that he was married, as was Apokaukos. 49 Gaul (2002), 210. For this John see also Bryer (1979), 226, who is concerned with the monastic interests of the eunuch: he founded the monastery of the Pharos in Trebizond, and was also a benefactor of the Soumela monastery. 50 Gaul (2002), 201. 51 Pachym. 7.27; Gaul (2002), 209. 52 Ps.-Kod., Off. 261.3–21. 53 Guilland (1943), 234, (1967) I, 189. 54 Kantak. 1.41. 55 Kantak. 3.95. 56 Pachym. 5.6. On this episode see Failler (1981). 57 On John see for example Laurent (1930) and (1934); Gaul (2002), 201–203 and 204. 58 See Nikephoros Gregoras, Life of John of Heraclea 4, ed. Laurent (1934), 38.5–10. 59 See for example Gaul (2002), 204 and 210. For Neophytos see Pachym. 9.5. 60 Gaul (2002), 206–7. 61 Gaul (2002), 201–3. 62 Gaul (2002), 207–8. 63 Gaul (2002), 203, comments on the cases of George Pepagomenos and Michael Kallikrenites. 64 Gaul (2002), 211–12 n. 5. 65 See for instance Kazhdan and Epstein (1985), 67–8; Gaul (2002), 200. 66 Lemerle (1977), 260–3. He identifies John the orphanotrophos, Leichoudes, John the logothete, Leo Paraspondylos, John of Side, Nikephoritzes and Michael Psellos as the paradynasts from 1025–1081. 67 Kazhdan and Constable (1982), 136. 68 See Tougher (2002b), esp. 150–1

207

NOTES

69 See for instance Shepard (1996). 70 See for example Magdalino (1993b), esp. 221–3. Note however Kazhdan and Epstein (1985), 70. 71 Gaul (2002), 200. 72 For the use of eunuchs at the Ottoman court after 1453 see for instance the account of Theodore Spandounes in his On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors (trans. Nicol 1997, 110–13), written in the first half of the sixteenth century. Theodore was a descendant of the Kantakouzenos family, and had lived under the Ottomans in Istanbul. 73 Bryen. 1.17. 74 Lowry (2003), 73–4. 75 See also Peirce (1993), 36. 76 Kantak. 3.81 (Khatzes), 4.16 (Mertzianes). See also Imber (1990), 22, on Orhan’s eunuch envoy Khatzes.

208

BIBLIOGRAP HY

Primary sources Acts of Protaton, ed. and French trans. D. Papachryssanthou, Paris, 1975. Acts of Xenophon, ed. and French trans. D. Papachryssanthou, Paris, 1986. Aelius Donatus, Commentary on Terence’s The Eunuch, ed. P. Wessner, Leipzig, 1902. Agathias, History, ed. R. Keydell, Berlin, 1967, trans. J.D. Frendo, Berlin and New York, 1975. Ambrose, Letters, PL 16, 849–1286, trans. H. Walford, Oxford, 1881. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe, 3 vols, London, 1935–1939. Antony of Novgorod, The Pilgrim Book, trans. M. Ehrhard, Romania (1932), 44–65. Appian, Roman History, text and trans. H. White, 4 vols, London, 1912–1913. Aristotle, Generation of Animals, text and trans. A.L. Peck, Cambridge MA and London, 1942. Aristotle, History of Animals, Books 1–6 text and trans. A.L. Peck, 2 vols, London, 1965–70, Books 7–10 ed. and trans. D.M. Balme, Cambridge MA, 1991. Arrian, Anabasis, text and trans. P.A. Brunt, 2 vols, Cambridge MA, 1976–1983. Assyrian Laws, ed. and trans. G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, Oxford, 1935. Athanasius, Apology for his Flight, PG 25.2, 643–80, trans. M. Atkinson, Oxford, 1843, 189–209. Athanasius, History of the Arians, PG 25.2, 695–796, trans. M. Atkinson, Oxford, 1843, 219–96. Attaleiates, Michael, Diataxis, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, REB 39 (1981), 16–130, trans. A.-M. Talbot in Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), 333–70. Attaleiates, Michael, Historia, ed. and Spanish trans. I. Pérez Martín, Madrid, 2002. Basil II, Novel of 996, ed. and French trans. N. Svoronos, Athens, 1994, trans. E. McGeer, Toronto, 2000. Basil of Ancyra, On the True Purity of Virginity, PG 30, 669–810, edition of the Old Slavonic text with French trans. A. Vaillant, Paris, 1943. Basil the Great, Letters, texts and trans. R.J. Defferrari, 4 vols, London, 1926–1950. Basilakes, Nikephoros, Bagoas, ed. A. Garzya, Leipzig, 1984, 92–110. Bryennios, Nikephoros, History, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, Brussels, 1975. Cassius Dio, Roman History, text and trans. E. Cary, 9 vols, London, 1914–27. Catullus, Poems, ed. and trans. F.A. Wright, London, 1926. Choirosphaktes, Leo, Letters, ed. and French trans. G. Kolias, Athens, 1939. Choniates, Michael, Works, ed. S. Lampros, 2 vols, Athens, 1879–1880.

209

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Choniates, Niketas, Historia, ed. J.-L. van Dieten, 2 vols, Berlin, 1975, trans. H.J. Magoulias, Detroit, 1984. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby, Liverpool, 1989. Claudian, In Eutropium, text and trans. M. Platnauer, vol. 1, London, 1922. Constantine VII, De administrando imperio, ed. and trans. G. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins, Washington DC, 1967. Constantine VII, De cerimoniis, ed. J.J. Reiske, 2 vols, Bonn, 1829–30, partial French trans. A. Vogt, Paris, 1935–1940 . Constantine VII, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, ed. and trans. J.F. Haldon, Vienna, 1990. Constantius of Lyon, Life of Germanus of Auxerre, ed. and French trans. R. Borius, Paris, 1965. Corippus, In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, ed. and trans. Averil Cameron, London, 1976. Ctesias, Persica, fragments ed. and French trans. D. Lenfant, Paris, 2004. Cyril of Alexandria, Contra eunuchos, PG 77, 1105–9, also ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1904, 651–4. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Cyriacus, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1939, trans. R.M. Price, Kalamazoo, 1991. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1939, trans. R.M. Price, Kalamazoo, 1991. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Sabas, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1939, trans. R.M. Price, Kalamazoo, 1991. Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Theodosius, ed. E. Schwartz, Leipzig, 1939, trans. R.M. Price, Kalamazoo, 1991. Diegesis merike, ed. P. Meyer, Leipzig, 1894, 163–84. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, text and trans. C.H. Oldfather et al., 12 vols, Cambridge MA and London, 1933–1967. Ekloga HG DQG *HUPDQ WUDQV / %XUJPDQQ )UDQNIXUW  WUDQV (+ )UHVK¿HOG Cambridge, 1926. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, eds K. Holl and H. Dummer, 3 vols, Berlin, 1980–1985, trans. F. Williams, 2 vols, Leiden and New York, 1987–1990. Epitome de Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayer, Leipzig, 1911, trans. T.M. Banchich, Canisius College Translated Texts 1 (www.roman-emperors.org/epitome.htm), Buffalo NY, 2000. Eunapius, History, fragments, ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, Liverpool, 1983. Euripides, Orestes, eds D. Grene and R. Lattimore, trans. W. Arrowsmith, Chicago, 1958. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, text and trans. K. Lake, J.E.L Oulton and H.J. Lawlor, 2 vols, London, 1926–1932. Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, eds J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, London, 1898, trans. Michael Whitby, Liverpool, 2000. Fulcher of Chartres, Deeds of the Franks on their Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, ed. H. Hagenmeyer, Heidelberg, 1913, trans. F.R. Ryan, Knoxville, 1969. Genesios, On the Reigns of the Emperors, eds A. Lesmüller-Werner and H. Thurn, Berlin, 1978, trans. A. Kaldellis, Canberra, 1998. George the Monk, Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1904. Georgius Monachus Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker, Bonn, 1838. Greek Anthology, text and trans. W.R. Paton, 5 vols, London, 1916–1918.

210

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Gregoras, Nikephoros, Life of John of Heraclea, ed. V. Laurent, Archeion Pontou 6 (1934), 3–67. Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, ed. H. Omont and G. Collon, rev. R. Poupardin, Paris, 1913, trans. O.M. Dalton, vol. 2, Oxford, 1927. Guibert de Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Turnholt, 1996, trans. R. Levine, Woodbridge, 1997. Heliodorus, Aethiopica, eds R.M. Rattenbury and T.W. Lumb and French trans. J. Maillon, 3 vols, Paris, 1935–1943. Herodotus, Histories, text and trans. A.D. Godley, 4 vols, London, 1920–1924. Historia Augusta, text and trans. D. Magie, 3 vols, London, 1922–1932. Humbert of Silva Candida, Brevis et succincta commemoratio, PL 143, 1001–4. Ibn Jubayr, Travels, ed. W. Wright, Leiden, 1907, trans. R.J.C. Broadhurst, New Delhi, 2001. Jahiz, Response to the Christians, French trans. I.S. Allouche, Hespéris 26 (1939), 123–55. Jahiz, Works, partial trans. C. Pellat with D.M. Hawke, Berkeley CA, 1969. Jerome, Letters, ed. and French trans. J. Labourt, 6 vols, Paris, 1945–1958. John of Antioch, Historia Chronica, fragments ed. and Italian trans. U. Roberto, Berlin and New York, 2005. John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3, ed. E.W. Brooks, Paris, 1935, trans. R. Payne, Oxford, 1860. John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks, 3 vols, Paris, 1923–1925. John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow, PG 87.3, 2851–3112, trans. J. Wortley, Kalamazoo, 1992. Josephus, Autobiography, ed. and French trans. A. Pelletier, Paris, 1959. Julian, Letter to the Athenians, text and trans. W.C. Wright, London, 1913. Julian, Misopogon, text and trans. W.C. Wright, London, 1913. Justin Martyr, Apology, ed. C. Munier, Paris, 2006, trans. C. Munier, Paris, 2006. Justinian, Code, ed. P. Krueger, Berlin, 1954. Justinian, Novels, eds R. Schoell and W. Kroll, Berlin, 1954. Juvenal, Satires, ed. J. Ferguson, Basingstoke, 1979, trans. P. Green, 3rd edn, London, 1998. Kallistos, Nikephoros, Encomium on John the Faster, ed. H. Gelzer, Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 20 (1886), 64–89. Kantakouzenos, John, History, ed. L. Schopen, 3 vols, Bonn, 1828–1832. Kataskepenos, Nicholas, Life of Cyril Phileotes, ed. and French trans. E. Sargologos, Brussels, 1964. Kedrenos, George, Chronicle, ed. I. Bekker, 2 vols, Bonn, 1838–1839. Kekaumenos, Strategikon, ed. G. Litavrin, Moscow, 1972. Kinnamos, John, Epitome, ed. A. Meineke, Bonn, 1836, trans. C.M. Brand, New York, 1976. Komnene, Anna, Alexiad, eds D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis, Berlin and New York, 2001, trans. E.R.A. Sewter, Harmondsworth, 1969. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, ed. and trans. J.L. Creed, Oxford, 1984. Leo VI, Novels, ed. and French trans. P. Noailles and A. Dain, Paris, 1944. Leo the Deacon, History, ed. C.B. Hase, Bonn, 1828, trans. A.-M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan, Washington DC, 2005. Leo, Metropolitan of Synada, Letters, ed. and trans. M.P. Vinson, Washington DC, 1985.

211

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Leontios of Neapolis, Life of John the Almsgiver, ed. and French trans. A.J. Festugière with L. Rydén, Paris, 1974, 343–524. Libanius, Oration 18, text and trans. A.F. Norman, Cambridge MA and London, 1969. Liberatus, Breviarium, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin and Leipzig, 1936. Life of Antony the Younger, ed. F. Halkin, AB 62 (1944), 187–225. Life of Daniel the Stylite, ed. H. Delehaye, AB 32 (1913), 121–229, trans. E. Dawes and N.H. Baynes, Oxford, 1948. Life of David, Symeon and George, ed. J. van den Gheyn, AB 18 (1899), 209–59, trans. D. Domingo-Forasté in Talbot, ed. (1998), 149–241. Life of Eustratios, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Analekta 4 (1897), 367–400, and 5 (1898), 408–10. Life of Euthymios the Patriarch, ed. and trans. P. Karlin-Hayter, Brussels, 1970. Life of Ignatios the Younger, PG 105, 487–574, ed. and trans. A. Smithies, unpublished PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1987. Life of Lazaros of Mount Galesion, AASS1RY,,,WUDQV53+*UHHQ¿HOG:DVKLQJWRQ DC, 2000. Life of Matrona of Perge, AASS, Nov. III, trans. J. Featherstone in Talbot, ed. (1996), 18–64. Life of Melania the Younger, ed. and French trans. D. Gorce, Paris, 1962. Life of Nikephoros of Miletos, ed. H. Delehaye, AB 14 (1895), 129–66. Life of Niketas the Patrikios, ed. and French trans. D. Papachryssanthou, TM 3 (1968), 309–51. Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, ed. P. Chiesa, Turnhout, 1998, trans. F.A. Wright, London and Rutland Vermont, 1993 (originally published 1930). Liudprand of Cremona, Relatione de Legatione Constantinopolitana, ed. P. Chiesa, Turnhout, 1998, also ed. and trans. B. Scott, Bristol, 1993. Livistros and Rhodamne, ed. J.A. Lambert, Amsterdam, 1935. Malalas, John, Chronographia, ed. H. Thurn, Berlin and New York, 2000, trans. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott et al., Melbourne, 1986. Manasses, Constantine, Aristandros and Kallithea, ed. O. Mazal, Vienna, 1967. Marcellinus, Count, Chronicle, ed. and trans. B. Croke, Sydney, 1995. Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, ed. and French trans. H. Grégoire and M.-A. Kugener, Paris, 1930. Martial, Epigrams, ed. and trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, 3 vols, Cambridge MA and London, 1993. Masudi, The Meadows of Gold, French trans. B. de Meynard and P. de Courteille, rev. C. Pellat, 3 vols, Paris, 1962–71, partial trans. P. Lunde and C. Stone, London and New York, 1989. Miracles of St Artemios, text and trans. V.S. Crisafulli and J.W. Nesbitt, Leiden, 1997. Narratio de Sancta Sophia, ed. T. Preger, Leipzig, 1901. Nestorius, Bazaar of Heraclides, ed. and trans. G.R. Driver and L. Hodgson, Oxford, 1925. Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, ed. and trans. R.J.H. Jenkins and L.G. Westerink, Washington DC, 1973. Nikephoros, Breviarium, ed. and trans. C. Mango, Washington DC, 1990. Notitia Dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck, Frankfurt, 1962 (originally published 1876). Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem, ed. and trans. V.G. Berry, New York, 1948.

212

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Oneirocriticon of Achmet, ed. F. Drexl, Leipzig, 1925, trans. S. Oberhelman, Lubbock TX, 1991. Pachymeres, George, History, Books 1–6, ed. A. Failler and French trans. V. Laurent, 2 vols, Paris, 1984, Books 7–13, ed. and French trans. A. Failler, 2 vols, Paris, 1999. Palladius, Dialogue about the Life of John Chrysostom, ed. P.R. Coleman-Norton, Cambridge, 1928. Palladius, Lausiac History, ed. G.J.M. Bartelink, and Italian trans. M. Barchiesi, Milan, 1974, trans. W.K. Lowther Clarke, London, 1918. Panegyrici Latini, text and trans. C.E.V. Nixon and B.S. Rodgers, Berkeley and Oxford, 1994. Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, ed. and trans. Averil Cameron and J. Herrin, Leiden, 1984. Passion of Eleutherius the Chamberlain, AASS, August, vol. 1, 321–6. Passion of Indes and Domna, PG 116, 1037–81. Patria Constantinopoleos, ed. T. Preger, Leipzig, 1907. Paul Helladikos, Letter, ed. V. Lundström, Uppsala and Leipzig, 1902, 17–23. Paul of Aegina, Epitome of Medicine, ed. J.L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1921, trans. F. Adams, 3 vols, London, 1844–1847. Pausanias, Description of Greece, Books 1–2 and 5–10, text and trans. W.H.S. Jones, 3 vols, London, 1918–35, Books 3–5, text and trans. W.H.S Jones and H.A. Ormerod, London, 1926. Peira, eds J. Zepos and P. Zepos, Athens, 1931, repr. Aalen, 1962. Peter the Monk, Life of Ioannikios, AASS, Nov. III.1, trans. D.F. Sullivan in Talbot, ed. (1998), 255–351. Petronius, Satyricon, ed. and French trans. A. Ernout, Paris, 1958. Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez, rev. F. Winkelmann, Berlin, 1972, trans. E.W. Walford, London, 1855. Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, text and trans. W.C. Wright, New York and London, 1921. Philotheos, Kletorologion, ed. and French trans. N. Oikonomidès, Paris, 1972. Photios, Letters, eds B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, 3 vols, Leipzig, 1983–5, partial trans. D.S. White, Brookline MA, 1981. Plato, Protagoras, text and trans. H. North Fowler, London, 1924. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, text and trans. H. Rackham, W.H.S. Jones and D.E. Eickholz, 10 vols, London and Cambridge MA, 1938–1963. Plutarch, Lives, text and trans. B. Perrin, 11 vols, London, 1914–1943. Polybius, Histories, text and trans. W.R. Paton, 6 vols, London, 1922–1927. Priscus, History, fragments ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, Liverpool, 1983. Procopius, Secret History, text and trans. H.B. Dewing, London, 1935. Procopius, Wars, text and trans. H.B. Dewing, 5 vols, London, 1914–1928. Prodromos, Theodore, Life of Meletios, ed. V. Vasilievskii, Pravoslavnii palestinskii sbornik 6.2 (1886), trans. P. Armstrong (forthcoming). Psellos, Michael, Chronographia, ed. and French trans. E. Renauld, 2 vols, Paris,1926–1928, trans. E.R.A. Sewter, London, 1966. Pseudo-Kodinos, 7UHDWLVHRI2I¿FHV, ed. and French trans. J. Verpeaux, Paris, 1976. Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, text and trans. J.C. Rolfe, 2 vols, London, 1946. 5X¿QXVEcclesiastical History, ed. T. Mommsen, Leipzig, 1908, Books 10 and 11 trans. P.R. Amidon, New York and Oxford, 1997.

213

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Rufus, John, Life of Peter the Iberian, ed. and German trans. R. Raabe, Leipzig, 1895. Simocatta, Theophylact, History, ed. C. de Boor, rev. P. Wirth, Stuttgart, 1972, trans. Michael and Mary Whitby, Oxford, 1986. Skylitzes, John, Synopsis Historiarum, ed. J. Thurn, Berlin and New York, 1973, French trans. B. Flusin (with notes by J.–C. Cheynet), Paris, 2003. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, ed. G.C. Hansen, Berlin, 1995, trans. A.C. Zenos, New York, 1890. Sophronius, Anacreontica, PG 87.3, 3733–3838. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, eds J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen, Berlin, 1960; also Books 1–2 ed. J. Bidez with French trans. A.-J. Festugière, Paris, 1983, Books 3–4 ed. J. Bidez with French trans. A.-J. Festugière (†), Paris, 1996, Books 5–6 eds J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen with French trans. A.-J. Festugière (†) and B. Grillet, Paris, 2005. Spandounes, Theodore, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, ed. C.N. Sathas, Paris, 1980, trans. D.M. Nicol, Cambridge, 1997. Statius, Silvae, text and trans. J.H. Mozley, London and New York, 1928. Stethatos, Niketas, Life of Symeon the New Theologian, ed. and trans. I. Hausherr (trans. with G. Horn), Rome, 1928. Strabo, Geography, text and trans. H. Leonard Jones, 8 vols, London and Cambridge MA, 1966–1970. Suda, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols, Leipzig, 1928–38, Suda online (SOL) www.stoa.org/sol/ Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, text and trans. J.C. Rolfe, 2 vols, London and New York, 1914. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delehaye, Brussels, 1902. Tabari, History, trans. F. Rosenthal et al., 40 vols, Albany NY, 1985–2007. Tacitus, Annals, ed. and French trans. H. Goezler, 3 vols, Paris, 1953–1958. Terence, The Eunuch, ed. and trans. A.J. Brothers, Warminster, 2000. Theodore the Stoudite, Epigrams, PG 99, 1780–812. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, ed. L. Parmentier, Berlin, 1954, trans. B. Jackson, New York, 1892. Theodosian Code, ed. T. Mommsen, Berlin, 1962, trans. C. Pharr, Princeton, 1952. Theophanes, Chronicle, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1883–5, trans. C. Mango and R. Scott, Oxford, 1997. Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker, Bonn, 1838. Theophylact of Ochrid, In Defence of Eunuchs, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, Thessalonica, 1980, 288–331. Theophylact of Ochrid, Poems, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, Thessalonica, 1980. Timarion, ed. R. Romano, Naples, 1974, trans. B. Baldwin, Detroit, 1984. Tornikes, George, Funeral Oration on Anna Komnene, ed. and French trans. J. Darrouzès, Paris, 1970, 220–323. Typikon of Athanasios of Athos, ed. P. Meyer, Leipzig, 1894, 102–22, trans. G. Dennis in Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), vol. 1, 250–65. Typikon of Kecharitomene, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, REB 43 (1985), 18–155, trans. R. Jordan in Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), vol. 2, 664–717. Typikon of Kosmosoteira, ed. L. Petit, IRAIK ±WUDQV13âHYþHQNRLQ Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), vol. 2, 798–849. Typikon of Pantokrator, ed. and French trans. P. Gautier, REB 32 (1974), 1–145, trans. R. Jordan in Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), vol. 2, 737–74. Typikon of Phoberou, ed. A.I. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, St Petersburg, 1913, trans. R. Jordan in Thomas and Hero, eds (2000), vol. 3, 880–946.

214

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Vision of the Monk Kosmas, AASS,Propylaeum,Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Nov., 107–14. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, text and trans. W. Miller, 2 vols, London, 1914. Zonaras, John, Chronicle, eds M. Pinder and T. Büttner-Wobst, 3 vols, Bonn, 1841–97. Zosimus, New History, ed. and French trans. F. Paschoud, 5 vols, Paris, 1979–2000, trans. R.T. Ridley, Canberra, 1982.

Modern works Adam, P. (1907), Irène et les eunuques, Paris. Adkin, N. (2003), Jerome on Virginity. A Commentary on the Libellus de virginitate servanda (Letter 22), Cambridge. Ancillon, C. (1707), Traité des eunuques, Berlin. Anderson, M.M. (1990), Hidden Power: The Palace Eunuchs of Imperial China, Buffalo NY. André, N. (2006), Voicing Gender: Castrati, Travesti, and the Second Woman in EarlyNineteenth-Century Italian Opera, Bloomington IN. Angold, M. (1975), A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261), London. Angold, M. (1991), ‘The Byzantine state on the eve of Manzikert’, BF 16, 9–34. Angold, M. (1995), Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261, Cambridge. Angold, M. (1997), The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History, 2nd edn, London and New York. Armstrong, P. (1996), ‘Alexios Komnenos, holy men and monasteries’, in Mullett and Smythe, eds (1996), 219–31. Armstrong, P. (forthcoming), The Lives of Meletios of Myoupolis: introduction, translation and commentary. Ashbrook Harvey, S. (1984), ‘Physicians and ascetics in John of Ephesus: an expedient alliance’, DOP 38, 87–93. Ayalon, D. (1977), ‘The eunuchs in the Mamluk Sultanate’, in M. Rosen-Ayalon, ed., Studies in Memory of Gaston Weit, Jerusalem, 267–95, repr. Ayalon (1979b), III. Ayalon, D. (1979a), ‘On the eunuchs in Islam’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1, 67–124, repr. Ayalon (1988), III. Ayalon, D. (1979b), The Mamluk Military Society, London. Ayalon, D. (1985), ‘On the term NKƗGLP in the sense of ‘eunuch’ in the early Muslim sources’, Arabica 32, 289–308, repr. Ayalon (1994), XI. Ayalon, D. (1988), Outsiders in the Lands of Islam: Mamluks, Mongols and Eunuchs, London. Ayalon, D. (1994), Islam and the Abode of War: Military Slaves and Islamic Adversaries, Aldershot. Ayalon, D. (1999), Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study in Power Relationships, Jerusalem. Badian, E. (1958), ‘The eunuch Bagoas: a study in method’, CQ 8, 144–57. Balch, R.W. and Taylor, D. (2002), ‘Making sense of the Heaven’s Gate suicides’, in D.G. Bromley and J.G. Melton, eds, Cults, Religion and Violence, Cambridge, 209–28. Barbier, P. (1996), The World of the Castrati: The History of an Extraordinary Operatic Phenomenon, trans. M. Crosland, London.

215

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Bardel, R. (2002), ‘Eunuchizing Agamemnon: Clytemnestra, Agamemnon and maschalismos’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 51–70. Barnes, T.D. (1998), Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca and London. Barthes, R. (1974), S/Z, trans. R. Miller, New York. Beard, M. (1994), ‘The Roman and the foreign: the cult of the “Great Mother” in imperial Rome’, in N. Thomas and C. Humphrey, eds, Shamanism, History, and the State, Ann Arbor, 164–90. Bevington, D., ed. (2005), Antony and Cleopatra, New York. Birk, J.C. (2005), ‘From borderlands to borderlines: narrating the past of twelfth-century Sicily’, in J.P. Helfers, ed., Multicultural Europe and Cultural Exchange in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Turnhout, 9–31. Bjornholt, B.K. and James, L. (2007), ‘The man in the street: some problems of gender and identity in Byzantine material culture’, in A. Muthesius, M. Grünbart, W. Kislinger and D. Stathakopoulos, eds, Material Culture and Well-being in Byzantium 400–1453, Vienna, 51–7. Blockley, R.C. (1981), The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Liverpool. Bosworth, A.B. (1988), Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge. Boulhol, P. and Cochelin, I. (1992), ‘La rehabilitation de l’eunuque dans l’hagiographie antique (IVe–VIe siècles)’, Studi di Antichita Christiana 48, 49–76. Bowersock, G.W., Brown, P. and Grabar, O., eds (1999), Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, Cambridge MA and London. Briant, P. (2002), From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P.T. Daniels, Winona Lake, Indiana. Briant, P. (2003), Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre, Paris. Brokkaar, W.G. (1972), ‘Basil Lacapenus: Byzantium in the tenth century’, Studia Byzantina et Neohellenica Neerlandica 3, 199–234. Browe, P. (1936), Zur Geschichte der Entmannung: eine religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studie, Breslau. Brown, P. (1989), The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, London. Bryer, A. (1979), ‘The late Byzantine monastery in town and countryside’, Studies in Church History 16, 219–41. Buckton, D. and Hetherington, P. (2006), ‘An unknown masterpiece of Byzantine enamel and gold’, Apollo, August, 28–33. Bullough, V.L. (2002), ‘Eunuchs in history and society’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 1–17. Burkert, W. (1983), +RPR1HFDQV7KH$QWKURSRORJ\RI$QFLHQW*UHHN6DFUL¿FLDO5LWXDO and Myth, trans. P. Bing, Berkeley and Los Angeles CA. Burton, R.F. (1885–6), The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, 10 vols, Benares. Bury, J.B. (1911), The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century: With a Revised Text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos, London. Bush, K., ed. (1996), The Country Wife, Cambridge. Cameron, Alan (1965), ‘Eunuchs in the “Historia Augusta”’, Latomus 24, 155–8. Cameron, Alan (1970), Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford. Cameron, Alan and Long, J. (1993), Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius, with a contribution by L. Sherry, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford.

216

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Cameron, Averil (1993), The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity AD 395–600, London and New York. Camiz, F.T. (1988), ‘The castrato singer: from informal to formal portraiture’, Artibus et Historiae 18, 171–86. Caner, D.F. (1997), ‘The practice and prohibition of self-castration in early Christianity’, VC 51, 396–415. &DQWDFX]LQR0 µ7KH¿QDOFXW¶The Guardian, Friday October 13, 15. &DUULHU 0   µ3HU¿GLRXV DQG HIIHPLQDWH *UHHNV WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI %\]DQWLQH ceremonial in the western chronicles of the Crusades (1096–1204)’, Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 4, 47–68. Carroll, R. (2001), ‘Pope urged to apologise for Vatican castrations’, The Guardian, Tuesday August 14, 9. Cauldwell, D.O. (1947), Effects of Castration on Men and Women, Girard, Kansas. Cawadias, A.P. (1946), ‘Male eunuchism considered in the light of the historical method’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 39, 501–6. Chase, C. (1998), ‘Hermaphrodites with attitude: mapping the emergence of intersex political activism’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 4, 189–211. Cheney, V.T. (1995), A Brief History of Castration, Florida. Cheynet, J.-C. (1996), Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963–1210), Paris. Chitty, D.J. (1995), The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, Crestwood NY, originally published 1966. Ciggaar, K.N. (1996), Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural and Political Relations, Leiden. Clapton, N. (2004), Moreschi: The Last Castrato, London. Clapton, N., ed. (2006), Handel and the Castrati: The Story Behind the 18th Century Superstar Singers, Catalogue of the exhibition, Handel House Museum, 29 March–1 October 2006, London. Colapinto, J. (2000), As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl, New York. Cornwell, T. (1997), ‘Castration by knife may be the kindest cut after all’, Independent on Sunday, 20 July. Coser, L.A. (1964), ‘The political functions of eunuchism’, American Sociological Review 29, 880–5. &RVWD($-U µ7KHRI¿FHRIWKH³FDVWUHQVLVVDFULSDODWLL´LQWKHIRXUWKFHQWXU\¶ B 42, 358–87. Croutier, A.L. (1989), Harem: The World Behind the Veil, New York. Cumont, F. (1926), Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922–1923), Paris. Dam, R. (2003), ‘A life in the day: Asha Devi’, The Sunday Times Magazine, 28 December, 62. 'H*DLI¿HU% µ3DODWLQVHWHXQXTXHVGDQVTXHOTXHVGRFXPHQWVKDJLRJUDSKLTXHV¶ AB 75, 17–46. Delierneux, N. (1997), ‘Virilité physique et sainteté féminine dans l’hagiographie orientale du IVe au VIIe siècle’, B 67, 179–243. Deller, K. (1999), ‘The Assyrian eunuchs and their predecessors’, in K. Watanabe, ed., 3ULHVWVDQG2I¿FLDOVLQWKH$QFLHQW1HDU(DVW, Heidelberg, 303–11. Dewar, M. (1990), ‘The fall of Eutropius’, CQ 40, 582–4. Diner, H. (1938), Emperors, Angels, and Eunuchs: The Thousand Years of the Byzantine Empire, trans. E. and C. Paul, London.

217

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Dionisotti, A.C. (1982), ‘From Ausonius’ schooldays? A schoolbook and its relatives’, JRS 72, 83–125. Drijvers, J.W. and Hunt, D., eds (1999), The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, London and New York. Dumitrescu, C.L. (1987), ‘Remarques en marge du Coislin 79: les trois eunuques et le problème du donateur’, B 57, 32–45. 'XQODS-( µ7KHRI¿FHRIWKHJUDQGFKDPEHUODLQLQWKHODWHU5RPDQDQG%\]DQWLQH empires’, in A.E.R Boak and J.E Dunlap., Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration, New York and London, 161–324. Duval Smith, A. (2004), ‘France introduces chemical castration for sex offenders’, The Independent, 11 November, 27. Edinburgh Tracts, vol. 8, Miscellaneous 1707–1821. Elm, S. (1994), ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, Oxford. Elsner, J. (1998), Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450, Oxford and New York. Engelstein, L. (1999), Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom: A Russian Folktale, Ithaca and London. Engelstein, L. (2000), ‘Personal testimony and the defense of faith: Skoptsy telling tales’, in L. Engelstein and S. Sandler, eds, Self and Story in Russian History, Ithaca, 330–50. Evans, H.C. and Wixom, W.D., eds (1997), The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261, New York. Failler, A. (1981), ‘Le projet de mariage d’Anne Palaiologina avec Milutin de Serbie’, Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 1, 239–49. Fauber, L.H. (1990), Narses Hammer of the Goths: The Life and Times of Narses the Eunuch, Gloucester. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000), Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, New York. Favazza, A.R. (1996), %RGLHV XQGHU 6LHJH 6HOIPXWLODWLRQ DQG %RG\ 0RGL¿FDWLRQ LQ Culture and Psychiatry, Baltimore and London, 2nd edn of Bodies under Siege: Selfmutilation in Culture and Psychiatry (1987). Featherstone, J. (1981), ‘A note on the dream of Bardas caesar in the Life of Ignatius and the archangel in the mosaic over the imperial doors of St Sophia’, BZ 74, 42–3. Fine, J.V.A., Jr. (1983), The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, Ann Arbor. Finucci, V. (2003), The Manly Masquerade: Masculinity, Paternity, and Castration in the Italian Renaissance, Durham and London. Frandsen, M.E. (2005), ‘Eunuchi Conjugium: the marriage of a castrato in early modern Germany’, Early Music History 24, 53–124. Galatariotou, C. (1987), ‘Byzantine ktetorika typika: a comparative study’, REB 45, 77–138. Garland, L. (1999), Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium AD 527–1204, London and New York. Garland, L. (2006), ‘Street-life in Constantinople: women and the carnivalesque’, in L. Garland, ed., Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience 800–1200, Aldershot, 163–76. Gaul, N. (2002), ‘Eunuchs in the late Byzantine empire, c. 1250–1400’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 199–219. Gera, D. (1997), Warrior Women: The Anonymous Tractatus de Mulieribus, Leiden. Gillard, D. (2001), ‘Counter argument’, Radio Times 23–29 June, 25.

218

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Glass, J.M. and Watkin, N.A. (1997), ‘From mutilation to medication: the history of orchidectomy’, British Journal of Urology 80, 373–8. Gleason, M.W. (1995), Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome, Princeton NJ. Goodwin, J. (2006), The Janissary Tree, London. Gouillard, J. (1959–1960), ‘Un chrysobulle de Nicéphore Botaneiatès à souscription synodale’, B 29–30, 29–41. Grayson, A.K. (1995), ‘Eunuchs in power: their role in the Assyrian bureaucracy’, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240, 85–98. Greatrex, G., and Bardill, J. (1996), ‘Antiochus the praepositus: a Persian eunuch at the court of Theodosius II’, DOP 50, 171–97. Grégoire, H. (1966), ‘The Amorians and Macedonians 842–1025’, in J.M. Hussey, ed., The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, The Byzantine Empire. Part I Byzantium and its Neighbours, Cambridge, 105–92. *ULI¿Q -   µ7KH XQNLQGHVW FXW¶ The New York Review of Books, November 1, 36–40. Grosrichard, A. (1998), The Sultan’s Court: European Fantasies of the East, trans. L. Heron, London and New York. Guilland, R. (1943), ‘Les eunuques dans l’empire byzantine. Etude de titulaire et de prosopographie byzantines’, REB 1, 197–238. Guilland, R. (1944a), ‘Charges des eunuques’, REB 2, 185–90. Guilland, R. (1944b), ‘Le Parakimomène’, REB 2, 191–201. Guilland, R. (1944c), ‘Le Protovestiaire’, REB 2, 202–20. Guilland, R. (1945), ‘Le Maître d’hôtel de l’empereur’, REB 3, 179–214. Guilland, R. (1953), ‘Le Stratopédarque et le Grand stratopédarque’, BZ 46, 63–90. Guilland, R. (1955), ‘Titres des eunuques’, REB 13, 50–84. Guilland, R. (1955/56/57), ‘Le Protospathaire’, B 25/26/27, 649–95. Guilland, R. (1956), ‘Le Primicier (Í PRIMIKˆRIOQ), le Grand primicier (Í MqGAQ PRIMIKˆRIOQ)’, REB 14, 122–57. Guilland, R. (1961), ‘Le Préposite’, BS 22, 241–301. Guilland, R. (1962), ‘Observations sur le Clètorologe de Philothée’, REB 20, 156–70. Guilland, R. (1967), Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols., Amsterdam. Guilland. R. (1970), ‘Contribution à la prosopographie de l’empire byzantin. Les patrices sous les règnes de Basile Ier (867–886) et de Léon VI (886–912)’, BZ 63, 300–17. Guyot, P. (1980), Eunuchen als Sklaven und Freigelassene in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Stuttgart. Hackel, S., ed. (1981), The Byzantine Saint, Birmingham. Haldon, J.F. (1997), Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, revised edn, Cambridge. Haldon, J. (2002), ‘Humour and the everyday in Byzantium’, in G. Halsall, ed., Humour, History and Politics in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Cambridge, 48–71. Hall, E. (1989), ,QYHQWLQJWKH%DUEDULDQ*UHHN6HOI'H¿QLWLRQWKURXJK7UDJHG\, Oxford. Hanson, R.P.C. (1966), ‘A note on Origen’s self-mutilation’, VC 20, 81–2. Harries, J. (1999), Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Harris, C. (2002), Memoirs of a Byzantine Eunuch, Sawtry. Harrison, M. (1989), A Temple for Byzantium, Austin TX. Hawkins, J.D. (2002), ‘Eunuchs among the Hittites’, in S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, eds, Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East – Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre

219

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, 2 vols, Helsinki, vol. 1, 217–33. Heartz, D. (1984), ‘Farinelli and Metastasio: rival twins of public favour’, Early Music 12, 358–66. Heartz, D. (1990), ‘Farinelli revisited’, Early Music 18, 430–43. Hefele, C.J. and Leclercq, H. (1907), Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux, 1.1, Paris. Heim, N. and Hursch, C.J. (1979), ‘Castration for sex offenders: treatment or punishment? A review and critique of recent European literature’, Archives of Sexual Behavior 8, 281–304. Hergès, A. (1898/99), ‘Le monastère des Agaures’, EO 2, 230–8. Heriot, A. (1975), The Castrati in Opera, London, originally published 1956. Herrin, J. (1995), ‘Theophano: considerations on the education of a Byzantine empress’, in A. Davids, ed., The Empress Theophano. Byzantium and the West at the Turn of the First Millennium, Cambridge, 64–85. Herrin, J. (2001), Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium, London. Hester, J.D. (2005), ‘Eunuchs and the postgender Jesus: Matthew 19.12 and transgressive sexualities’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.1, 13–40. +LJK¿OO3+%XUQLP.$DQG/DQJKDQV($HGV A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, vol. 14, Carbondale. Hogendorn, J.S. (2000), ‘The location and “manufacture” of eunuchs’, in Toru and Philips, eds (2000), 41–68. Holum, K.G. (1982), Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Honigmann, E. (1939), ‘Geographica. L’histoire ecclésiastique de Jean d’Éphèse’, B 14, 615–25. Honigmann, E. (1949), ‘Le cubiculaire Urbicius’, REB 7, 47–50. Hopkins, K. (1963), ‘Eunuchs in politics in the later Roman empire’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 189, 62–80. Hopkins, K. (1978), Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge. Horn, C.B. (2006), Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: The Career of Peter the Iberian, New York. Hornblower, S. (2003), ‘Panionios of Chios and Hermotimos of Pedasa (Hdt. 104–6)’, in P. Derow and R. Parker, eds, Herodotus and his World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, Oxford, 37–57. Howard-Johnston, J.D. (1995), ‘Crown lands and the defence of imperial authority in the tenth and eleventh centuries’, BF 21, 75–100. Humana, C. (1973), The Keeper of the Bed: The Story of the Eunuch, London. Imber, C. (1990), The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul. Jaffrey, Z. (1997), The Invisibles: A Tale of the Eunuchs of India, London. James, L. (2001), Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium, London and New York. James, L. and Tougher, S. (2005), ‘Get your kit on! Some issues in the depiction of clothing in Byzantium’, in L. Cleland, M. Harlow and L. Llewellyn-Jones, eds, The Clothed Body in the Ancient World, Oxford, 154–61. Janin, R. (1931), ‘Un ministre byzantin: Jean l’orphanotrophe (XIe siècle)’, EO 30, 431–43. Janin, R. (1935), ‘Un arabe ministre à Byzance: Samonas (IXe–Xe)’, EO 34, 307–18.

220

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Janin, R. (1975), Les églises et les monastères des grandes centres byzantines (Bithynie, Hellespont, Latros, Galèsios, Trébizonde, Athènes, Thessalonique), Paris. Jay, J.W. (1993), ‘Another side of Chinese eunuch history: castration, marriage, adoption, and burial’, Canadian Journal of History 28, 459–78. Jenkins, J.S. (1998), ‘The voice of the castrato’, The Lancet 351, 1877–80. -HQNLQV 5-+   µ7KH ÀLJKW RI 6DPRQDV¶ Speculum 23, 217–35, repr. Jenkins (1970), X. Jenkins, R.J.H. (1965a), ‘A “consolatio” of the patriarch Nicholas mysticus’, B 35, 159–66, repr. Jenkins (1970), XIX. Jenkins, R.J.H. (1965b), ‘A note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii’, DOP 19, 241–7, repr. Jenkins (1970), IX. Jenkins, R.J.H. (1970), Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, London. Johns, J. (2002), $UDELF$GPLQLVWUDWLRQLQ1RUPDQ6LFLO\7KH5R\DO'ƯZƗQ, Cambridge. Jolivet–Lévy, C. (1991), Les églises byzantines de Cappadoce. Le programme iconographique de l’abside et de ses abords, Paris. Jones, A.H.M. (1964), The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 3 vols, Oxford. Jordan, R.H. (2000), ‘John of Phoberou: a voice crying in the wilderness’, in D.C. Smythe, ed., Strangers to Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider, Aldershot and Burlington Vermont, 61–73. Kalamara, P. (2004), ‘.qASTOIXE‰ASTO"YZANTIN¿BESTI­RIOTOYENDEK­TOYAIÑNA’, in C.G. Angelidi, ed., 4O"YZ­NTIOÑRIMOGIAALLAGqQ, Athens, 269–86. Karlin–Hayter, P. (2003), ‘Iconoclasm’, in C. Mango, ed., The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford, 153–62. .D]KGDQ$ µ$GDWHDQGDQLGHQWL¿FDWLRQLQWKH;HQRSKRQQR¶B 59, 267–71. Kazhdan, A. and Constable, G. (1982), People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies, Washington DC. Kazhdan, A. and Franklin, S. (1984), Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Cambridge. Kazhdan, A.P. and Epstein, A.W. (1985), Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Berkeley and Los Angeles CA. Kazhdan, A.P. and McCormick, M. (1997), ‘The social world of the Byzantine court’, in Maguire, ed. (1997a), 167–97. Kentaro, S. (2000), ‘Slave elites and the 6DTƗOLED in al-Andalus in the Umayyad period’, in Toru and Philips, eds (2000), 25–40. Kofsky, A. (1997), ‘Peter the Iberian: pilgrimage, monasticism and ecclesiastical politics in Byzantine Palestine’, Liber Annuus 47, 209–22. .XHÀHU 0   µ&DVWUDWLRQ DQG HXQXFKLVP LQ WKH PLGGOH DJHV¶ LQ 9/ %XOORXJK and J.A. Brundage, eds, Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, New York and London, 279–306. .XHÀHU 0   The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity, Chicago. Kulikowski, M. (2000), ‘The Notitia Dignitatum as a historical source’, Hist 49, 358–77. Lad, J. (2003), ‘Panoptic bodies: black eunuchs in the Topkapi Palace’, Scroope 15, 16–20. Laiou, A.E. (1972), Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II 1282–1328, Cambridge MA.

221

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Laurent, V. (1930), ‘La personalité de Jean d’Héraclée (1250–1328) oncle et précepteur de Nicéphore Grégoras’, Hell 3 (1930), 297–315. Laurent, V. (1953), ‘Deux chrysobulles inédits des empereurs de Trébizonde Alexis IVJean IV et David II’, Archeion Pontou 18, 241–78. Lauxtermann, M.D. (2003), Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, vol. 1, Vienna. Leclercq, H. (1910), ‘Castration’, Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, vol. 2.2, Paris, 2369–72. Lemerle, P. (1971), Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle, Paris. Lemerle, P. (1977), Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin, Paris. Leroi, A.M. (2003), Mutants: On the Form, Varieties and Errors of the Human Body, London. Lévi-Provençal, E. (1937), ‘Un échange d’ambassades entre Cordoue et Byzance au IXe siècle’, B 12, 1–24. Leyser, K.J. (1988), ‘Ends and means in Liudprand of Cremona’, in J.D. Howard-Johnston, ed., Byzantium and the West c. 850–c.1200, Amsterdam, 119–43. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1991), Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, Oxford. Lightfoot, J.L. (2002), ‘Sacred eunuchism in the cult of the Syrian goddess’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 71–86. Llewellyn-Jones, L. (2002), ‘Eunuchs and the royal harem in Achaemenid Persia (559–331 BC)’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 19–49. Long, J. (1996), Claudian’s In Eutropium: Or, How, When, and Why to Slander a Eunuch, Chapel Hill and London. Lonsdale, R., ed. (1970), Vathek, London. Loud, G.A. and Wiedemann, T. (1998), The History of the Tyrants of Sicily by ‘Hugo Falcandus’ 1154–69, Manchester and New York. Lowden, J. (1997), Early Christian and Byzantine Art, London. Lowry, H.W. (2003), The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, New York. McGuckin, J.A. (1996), ‘Symeon the New Theologian (d.1022) and Byzantine monasticism’, in A. Bryer and M. Cunningham, eds, Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, Aldershot, 17–35. Maas, M. (2000), Readings in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook, London and New York. Macrides, R.J. (2000), ‘Substitute parents and their children in Byzantium’, in M. Corbier, ed., Adoption et fosterage, Paris, 1–11, repr. R.J. Macrides, Kinship and Justice in Byzantium, 11th–15th Centuries, Aldershot, 1999, III. Magdalino, P. (1981), ‘The Byzantine holy man in the twelfth century’, in Hackel, ed. (1981), 51–66. Magdalino, P. (1993a), ‘The Bagoas of Nikephoros Basilakes: a normal reaction?’, in L. Mayali and M.M. Mart, eds, Of Strangers and Foreigners (Late Antiquity–Middle Ages), Berkeley, 47–63. Magdalino, P. (1993b), The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180, Cambridge and New York. Magdalino, P. (1998), ‘Paphlagonians in Byzantine high society’, in S. Lampakis, ed., ( "YZANTINˆ-IKR­!S‰AOQ–OQAI , Athens, 141–50. Maguire, H. ed. (1997a), Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204, Washington DC. Maguire, H. (1997b), ‘The heavenly court’, in Maguire, ed. (1997), 247–58.

222

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Maltese, E.V. (1990), ‘Gli angeli in terra: sull’immaginario dell’angelo bizantino’, Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 24, 111–32. Mango, C. (1980), Byzantium: The Empire of the New Rome, London. Mango, C. (1984), ‘St. Michael and Attis’, Deltion 12, 39–62. Mango, C. and Hawkins, E.J.W. (1972), ‘The mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. The Church Fathers in the north tympanum’, DOP 26, 3–41. Markopoulos, A. (2004), ‘Joseph Bringas: prosopographical problems and ideological trends’, in A. Markopoulos, History and Literature of Byzantium in the 9th–10th Centuries, Aldershot, IV, English version of Greek original in Symmeikta 4 (1981), 87–115. Marmon, S. (1995), Eunuchs and Sacred Boundaries in Islamic Society, New York and Oxford. Marsche, D.T. (2002), The Eunuch Neferu, Lincoln. Mason, H.J. (1978), ‘Favorinus’ disorder: Reifenstein’s syndrome in antiquity?’, Janus 66, 1–13. Matthews, J. (1989), The Roman Empire of Ammianus, London. Mavroudi, M. (2002), A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation: The Oneirocriticon of Achmet and its Arabic Sources, Leiden. Mayhew, R. (2004), The Female in Aristotle’s Biology: Reason or Rationalization, Chicago and London. Meouak, M. (2004), 6DTƗOLEDHXQXTXHVHWHVFODYHVjODFRQTXrWHGXSRXYRLUJpRJUDSKLH et histoire des élites politiques ‘marginales’ dans l’Espagne umayyade, Helsinki. Millant, R. (1908), Les eunuques à travers les âges, Paris. Miller, M.C. (1997), Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Receptivity, Cambridge. Miller, T.S. (2003), The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire, Washington DC. Mitamura, T. (1970), Chinese Eunuchs: The Structure of Intimate Politics, trans. C.A. Pomeroy, Rutland Vermont and Tokyo. Money, J. (1998), ‘The Skoptic syndrome: Castration and genital self-mutilation as an example of sexual body-image pathology’, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 1, 113–28. Moran, N. (2002), ‘Byzantine castrati’, Plainsong and Medieval Music 11, 99–112. Moran, N. (2005), ‘The Choir of the Hagia Sophia’, Oriens Christianus 89, 1–7. Morgan, G. (1954), ‘A Byzantine satirical song?’, BZ 47, 292–7. Morris, R. (1981), ‘The political saint of the eleventh century’, in Hackel, ed. (1981), 43–50. Morris, R. (1995), Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118, Cambridge. 0RXVVD $&   µ³öƗKL]´ HW OHV HXQXTXHV RX OD FRQIXVLRQ GX PrPH HW O¶DXWUH¶ Arabica 29, 184–214. 0RXVVD$& µ'HODV\QRQ\PLHGDQVOHVVRXUFHVDUDEHVDQFLHQQHVOHFDVGH+ƗGLP et de Hasiyy’, Arabica 32, 309–22. Mullett, M. (1997), Theophylact of Ochrid: Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop, $OGHUVKRWDQG%URRN¿HOG9HUPRQW Mullett, M. (2002), ‘Theophylact of Ochrid’s In defence of eunuchs’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 177–98. Mullett, M. and Smythe, D., eds (1996), Alexios I Komnenos, vol. 1, Belfast.

223

BI BLI OGRAPHY

0XUUD\- µ0\VWLFDOFDVWUDWLRQVRPHUHÀHFWLRQVRQ3HWHU$EHODUG+XJKRI/LQFROQ and sexual control’, in J. Murray, ed., &RQÀLFWHG,GHQWLWLHVDQG0XOWLSOH0DVFXOLQLWLHV Men in the Medieval West, New York and London, 73–91. Nanda, S. (1996), ‘Hijras: an alternative sex and gender role in India’, in G. Herdt, ed., Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, New York, 373–417 and 579–82. Nanda, S. (1998), Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India, 2nd edn, Belmont CA. Nock, A.D. (1925), ‘Eunuchs in ancient religion’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 23, 25–33. Ogden, D. (1999), Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties, London. Orlandos, A.K. and Vranoussis, L. (1973), Ta charagmata tou Parthenoonos, Athens. Orr, D. (2002), ‘India’s impotent are a force to be reckoned with’, Scotland on Sunday, October 6, 28. Patrich, J. (1995), Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington DC. Patterson, O. (1982), Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, Cambridge MA and London. Peers, G. (2001), Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium, Berkeley and Los Angeles CA. Peeters, P. (1910), ‘S. Eleutherios-Guhištazad’, AB 29, 151–6. Peeters, P. (1925), ‘Le “Passionnaire d’Adiabène”’, AB 43, 261–304. Peirce, L.P. (1993), The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, New York. Pentcheva, B.V. (2007), ‘Containers of power: eunuchs and reliquaries in Byzantium’, Res 51, 109–20. Penzer, N.M. (1965), The Harem: An Account of the Institution as it Existed in the Palace of the Turkish Sultans with a History of the Grand Seraglio from its Foundations to Modern Times, London, originally published 1936. Peschel, E.R. and Peschel, R.E. (1987), ‘Medicine and music: the castrati in opera’, Opera Quarterly 4, 21–38. 3KLOLSV-( µ7KHSHUVLVWHQFHRIVODYHRI¿FLDOVLQWKH6RNRWRFDOLSKDWH¶LQ7RUXDQG Philips, eds (2000), 215–34. Polemis, D.I. (1968), The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, London. Popham, P. (1999), ‘The strange world of the Indian eunuch’, The Independent, Friday 15 October, 17. Rapp, C. (2001), ‘Palladius, Lausus and the Historia Lausiaca’, in C. Sode and S. Takács, eds, Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck, Aldershot and Burlington Vermont, 279–89. Reade, J.E. (1972), ‘The Neo-Assyrian court and army: evidence from the sculptures’, Iraq 34, 87–112. Reed, M. and Mayer E. (1999), One for Sorrow, Scottsdale AZ. Renault, M. (1972), The Persian Boy, London. Renehan, R. (1982), ‘Aristole as lyric poet: the Hermias poem’, GRBS 23, 251–74. Rice, A. (1990), Cry to Heaven, London. Ringrose, K.M. (1994), ‘Living in the shadows: eunuchs and gender in Byzantium’, in G. Herdt, ed., Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, New York, 85–109 and 507–18. Ringrose, K.M. (1996), ‘Eunuchs as cultural mediators’, BF 23, 75–93.

224

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Ringrose, K.M. (1999) ‘Passing the test of sanctity: denial of sexuality and involuntary castration’, in L. James, ed., Desire and Denial in Byzantium, Aldershot, 123–37. Ringrose, K.M. (2003), The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium, Chicago and London. Rodley, L. (1994), Byzantine Art and Architecture: An Introduction, Cambridge. Roller, L.E. (1997), ‘The ideology of the eunuch priest’, Gender and History 9, 542–59. Roller, L.E. (1999), In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele, Berkeley CA. Ross, M. (1958), ‘Basil the Proedros patron of the arts’, Archaeology 11, 271–5. Rosselli, J. (1988), ‘The castrati as a professional group and a social phenomenon, 1550–1850’, Acta Musicologica 60, 143–79. Rosselli, J. (1992), Singers of Italian Opera: The History of a Profession, Cambridge. Rousselle, A. (1988), Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity, trans. F. Pheasant, New York. Runciman, S. (1929), The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his Reign: A Study of TenthCentury Byzantium, Cambridge. Runciman, S. (1955), The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Centuries, Oxford. Rydén, L. (1984), ‘The portrait of the Arab Samonas in Byzantine literature’, GraecoArabica 3, 101–8. Said, E.W. (1995), Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, Reprinted with a new Afterword, London. Samber, R. (1718), Eunuchism Display’d, London. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (1987), ‘Decadence in the empire or decadence in the sources? From source to synthesis: Ctesias’, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ed., Achaemenid History, 1. Sources, Structures and Synthesis. Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden, 33–45. Schlinkert, D. (1994), ‘Der Hofeunuch in der Spätantike: Ein gefährlicher Außenseiter?’, Hermes 122, 342–59. Schlinkert, D. (1996), Ordo senatorius und nobilitas: Die Konstitution des Senatsadels in der Spätantike. Mit einem Appendix über den praepositus sacri cubiculi, den „allmächtigen“ Eunuchen am kaiserlichen Hof, Stuttgart. Scholten, H. (1995), Der Eunuch in Kaisernähe: zur politischen und sozialen Bedeutung des praepositus sacri cubiculi im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Frankfurt am Main/ Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Wien. 6FKROWHQ+ µ'HUREHUVWH+RIHXQXFK'LHSROLWLVFKH(I¿]LHQ]HLQHVJHVHOOVFKDIWOLFK Diskriminierten’, in A. Winterling, ed., Comitatus: Beiträge zur Erforschung des spätantiken Kaiserhofes, Berlin, 51–73. Scholtz, P.O. (2001), Eunuchs and Castrati: A Cultural History, trans. J.A. Broadwin and S.L. Frisch, Princeton. Schummer, C.M.F. (1992), ‘Liudprand of Cremona – a diplomat?’, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin, eds, Byzantine Diplomacy, Aldershot, 197–201. âHYþHQNR13 µ7KH/LPEXUJ6WDXURWKHNDQGLWVUHOLFV¶LQThymiama ste mneme tes Laskarinas Boura, Athens, 289–94. Shaw, T.M. (1997), ‘Creation, virginity and diet in fourth-century Christianity: Basil of Ancyra’s On the True Purity of Virginity’, Gender and History 9, 579–96. Shepard, J. (1996), ‘“Father” or “scorpion”? Style and substance in Alexios’s diplomacy’, in Mullett and Smythe, eds (1996), 68–132. Shipley, G. (2000), The Greek World after Alexander 323–30 BC, London and New York.

225

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Sidéris, G. (2000), ‘La comédie des castrats: Ammien Marcellin et les eunuques, entre eunucophobie et admiration’, Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire 78, 681–717. Sidéris, G. (2001), ‘Eunuques et pouvoir à Byzance IVe–VIIe siècle’, unpublished PhD thesis, Sorbonne University, Paris. Sidéris, G. (2002), ‘“Eunuchs of light”: power, imperial ceremonial and positive representations of eunuchs in Byzantium (4th–12th centuries AD)’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 161–75. Sidéris, G. (2003), ‘Eunuques, chambre impériale et palais à Byzance (IVe–VIe siècles)’, in M.-F. Auzépy and J. Cornette, eds, Palais et pouvoir de Constantinople à Versailles, Saint-Denis, 163–81. Simon, D. (1994), ‘Lobpreis des Eunuchen’, Schriften des historischen Kollegs, Vorträge 24, 5–27. Singh, D. (2001), Myself Mona Ahmed, Zurich, Berlin and New York. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1988), ‘“Myth” and history: on Herodotus III.48 and 50–53’, Opuscula Atheniensia 17, 167–82. Spatharakis, I. (1976), The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, Leiden. Stathakopoulos, D.Ch. (2004), Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Empire: A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics, Aldershot. Stavrakas, S. (1978), ‘Some reconsiderations on the eunuchs during the middle Byzantine empire’, www.byzconf.org/1978abstracts.html Stent, G.C. (1877), ‘Chinese eunuchs’, Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, n.s. 11, 143–84. Stephenson, P. (2000), Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204, Cambridge. Stevenson, W. (1995), ‘The rise of eunuchs in Greco-Roman antiquity’, Journal of the History of Sexuality 5, 495–511. Stevenson, W. (2002), ‘Eunuchs and early Christianity’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 123–42. Stylianou, A. and Stylianou, J.A. (1997), The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures of Byzantine Art, 2nd edn, Nicosia. Swain, S. (1989), ‘Favorinus and Hadrian’, ZPE 79, 150–8. Talbot, A.-M., ed. (1996), Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation, Washington DC. Talbot, A.-M., ed. (1998a), Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, Washington DC. Talbot, A.-M. (1998b), ‘Women’s space in Byzantine monasteries’, DOP 52, 113–27. Tarn, W.W. (1948), Alexander the Great, 2 vols, Cambridge. Tauber, E.S. (1940), ‘Effects of castration upon the sexuality of the adult male: a review of relevant literature’, Psychosomatic Medicine 2, 74–87. Taylor, G. (2000), Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood, New York and London. Thomas, J.P. (1987), Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, Washington DC. Thomas, J., and Hero, A.C., eds, (2000), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, 5 vols, Washington DC. Thompson, E.A. (1947), The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus, Cambridge. Toledano, E.R. (1984), ‘The imperial eunuchs of Istanbul: from Africa to the heart of Islam’, Middle Eastern Studies 20, 379–90.

226

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Toru, M. and Philips, J.E., eds (2000), Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, London and New York. Tougher, S. (1997a), ‘Byzantine eunuchs: an overview, with special reference to their creation and origin’, in L. James, ed., Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, London and New York, 168–84. Tougher, S. (1997b), The Reign of Leo VI (886–912): Politics and People, Leiden. Tougher, S. (1999a), ‘Ammianus and the eunuchs’, in D. Hunt and J.W. Drijvers, eds, The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, London and New York, 64–73. Tougher, S. (1999b), ‘Images of effeminate men: the case of Byzantine eunuchs’, in D.M. Hadley, ed., Masculinity in Medieval Europe, London, 89–100. Tougher, S., ed. (2002a), Eunuchs in Antiquity and Beyond, London. Tougher, S. (2002b), ‘In or out? Origins of court eunuch’, in Tougher, ed. (2002), 143–59. Tougher, S. (2004a), ‘Holy eunuchs! Masculinity and eunuch saints in Byzantium’, in P.H. Cullum and K.J. Lewis, eds, Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages, Cardiff, 93–108. Tougher, S. (2004b), ‘Social transformation, gender transformation? The court eunuch, 300–900’, in L. Brubaker and J.M.H. Smith, eds, Gender in the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300–900, Cambridge, 70–82. Tougher, S. (2005), ‘Two views on the gender identity of Byzantine eunuchs’, in A. Shaw and S. Ardener, eds, Changing Sex and Bending Gender, New York and Oxford, 60–73. Tougher, S. (2006), ‘“The angelic life”: monasteries for eunuchs’, in E.M. Jeffreys, ed., Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge, 238–52. Tougher, S. (forthcoming), ‘Eyeing up eunuchs: western perceptions of Byzantine cultural difference’, in L. James and S. Lambert, eds, Languages of Love and Hate: Art and Rhetoric in Medieval Discussions of the Crusades. Tsai, S.-s.H. (1996), The Eunuchs in the Ming Dynasty, Albany NY. Tsai, S.-s.H. (2002), ‘Eunuch power in imperial China’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 221–33. Tuchel, S. (1998), Kastration im Mittelalter, Düsseldorf. Turcan, R. (1996), The Cults of the Roman Empire, trans. A. Nevill, Oxford and Cambridge MA. van der Aalst, A.J. (1995), ‘The palace and the monastery in Byzantine spiritual life c. 1000’, in A. Davids, ed., The Empress Theophano. Byzantium and the West at the turn of the First Millennium, Cambridge, 314–36. van Eickels, K. (2004), ‘Gendered violence: castration and blinding as punishment for treason in Normandy and Anglo-Norman England’, Gender and History 16, 588–602. Vinson, M.P. (1998), ‘Gender and politics in the post-iconoclastic period: the Lives ofAntony the Younger, the empress Theodora, and the patriarch Ignatios’, B 68, 469–515. Wada, H. (2006), ‘“Eunuchen um des himmlischen Königsreichs willen” in Byzanz?’, Orient 41, 5–19. :DVVHUVXJ5 µ'LV¿JXULQJWUHDWPHQW"1RLWZDVKHDOLQJ¶The New York Times March 27. Wells, C. (2004), Review of Ringrose (2003), Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Weyl Carr, A. (1982), ‘A group of provincial manuscripts from the twelfth century’, DOP 36, 39–81. Wheatley, D. (1935), The Eunuch of Stamboul, London.

227

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Whittow, M. (1996), The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025, Basingstoke and London. Wiedemann, T. (1986), ‘An early Irish eunuch?’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 11, 139–40. Wille, R. and Beier, K.M. (1989), ‘Castration in Germany’, Annals of Sex Research 2, 103–33. Wilson, J.D. and Roehrborn, C. (1999), ‘Long-term consequences of castration in men: lessons from the Skoptzy and the eunuchs of the Chinese and Ottoman courts’, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 84, 4324–31. Wilson, P.R. (2002), Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research, 1958–1997, Part II, York. Witt, R. (2002), ‘The other castrati’, in Tougher, ed. (2002a), 235–60. Wittfogel, K.A. (1957), Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, New Haven. Womersley, D., ed. (1994), Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols, London. Woods, D. (1998), ‘Ammianus and Eutherius’, Acta Classica 41, 105–17. Wormell, D.E.W. (1935), ‘The literary tradition concerning Hermias of Atarneus’, Yale Classical Studies 5, 57–92. Yeazell, R.B. (2000), Harems of the Mind: Passages of Western Art and Literature, New Haven and London.

228

INDEX

Abasgia 26, 40, 45, 64, 144 Abdus, Parthian eunuch 9 Abelard, Peter 11, 28 Abradatas 100 Acolius, grand chamberlain of Valentinian III 42, 46, 134 Adam, Paul 1 Aegina 148 Aetios, minister of Eirene 54–5, 63, 65, 134, 166 Aetius, Roman general 42, 148 Africa 11, 102, 160, 165 Agapetos, koubikoularios and protovestiarios 134 Agapius, cleric 101 Agathias, historian 102, 202n69 Ahmed, Mona, hijra 24, 111 Akropolites, George 122, 126 al-Dawla, Sayf 56 Alexander, abbot of monasteries of archbishop Elias 72–3, 77 Alexander the Great 1, 2, 9, 11, 16–17, 21, 27 Alexandria 72, 142, 155 Alp Arslan, Seljuk sultan 126 Amantius, castrensis of empress Eudoxia 42, 100–1, 134 Amantius, grand chamberlain of Anastasius I 40, 80, 101, 134, 157 Ambrose, bishop of Milan 39, 138 America 13 Amigoni, Jacopo 25, 92 Amorion 63, 81, 105, 169 Amyrtaeus, king of Egypt 46 Anastasios, sakellarios 135 Anastasius I 40, 139, 155, 171 Anatolius, eunuch of imperial bedchamber 135

Ancillon, Charles, Traité des eunuques 16, 17, 32 Andrew, cubicularius and sacellarius 135 Andrew, koubikoularios 135 Angeloi, dynasty of 121, 123, 125, 127 Angelos, Alexios III 61, 121, 191n33 Angelos, Andronikos 121 Angelos, Constantine 121 Angelos, Isaac II 121 angels 52, 78, 106–7, 111, 114, 115, 198n108, 199n141, 205n159, 207n46; visual depictions of 107; archangel Gabriel 80, 86 (image of), 107 (image of), 114; archangel Michael 80 (oratory of), 89 (image of), 107, 113, 114, 139 Angourios, John 103, 150, 189–90n10 Anicia, Juliana 33, 72, 77, 81, 146 Anne of Savoy 122, 123, 126, 127 Anthimos, exarch of monasteries on the island of Glykeria 136 Anthony of Novgorod 122 Antioch 71, 96, 145, 154, 158, 161, 170 Antiochus, grand chamberlain of Theodosius II 40, 136 Apokaukos, Alexios, minister of Anne of Savoy 207n48 Apostypes, Leo 163 Appian 9 Aquileia 154 Arab empire/Arabs 11, 54, 55, 63, 64, 98, 105, 108, 155, 158, 161, 163, 169, 170 Arabian Nights 15, 17 Arbitio, master of cavalry 37 Arcadius 38, 40, 42, 44, 112, 155 Argyropoula, Maria 115 Argyros, Romanos III 56, 151, 156, 160, 161, 167 Arion, evil Indian eunuch 201n51 Aristonicus, eunuch of Ptolemy V 100

229

I NDEX

Aristotle 34–5, 46; Generation of Animals 34–5 Armenia 45, 123, 155, 158 Arrian 16, 21 Arsacius, eunuch of Honorius 42, 136, 168 Arsacius, helped install Gregory as bishop of Alexandria 136 Arsenios, monk 72, 136 Artakios, koubikoularios 61 Artoxares, eunuch of Darius II 44 Assyrian empire 7–8, 19, 22, 26, 28 Athanasios the Athonite 197n79 Athanasios, patriarch of Alexandria 158 Athanasius 79; History of the Arians 79 Athens 29 Athos, Mt 73, 75, 76, 81, 82, 122, 167 Atossa 7, 52 Attaleiates, Michael 73, 77, 103–4, 106, 109; Diataxis of 77, 109; hospice of the All-Merciful Christ 73 Attila the Hun 40, 148 Attis 10, 35, 68–9, 107 Aurelian 38 Axouch, Alexios 120, 171 Ayalon, David 19, 22, 43, 44, 45, 46, 64 Ayvali köy, church of in Cappadocia 205n165 Azades 73, 74 Baanes 21, 55, 136–7 Bababalouk, eunuch in Vathek 2 Bacchus, eunuch of Mithridates VI 9 Badian, Ernst 17 Bagdad 103, 165 Bagoas, cleric, 71, 122, 203n123 Bagoas, eunuch of Alexander the Great 1, 9, 16–17, 27 Bahuchara Mata 2, 12, 30, 68, 69 Balani, castrato 32 Balatri, castrato 12, 24, 111, 200n21; Autobiography 24 Barbatos, patrikios and parakoimomenos 137 Barbier, Patrick 24, 33 Bardas 55, 74, 106, 170 Bardio, comes 137 Basil I, the Macedonian 21, 55, 59, 150, 161, 163 Basil II 56, 65, 66, 104, 161, 162, 163 Basil, ambassador 137, 201n61 Basil of Ancyra, On the True Purity of Virginity 33, 97 Basil of Caesarea 79, 97, 98, 100, 101 Basil, eunuch of Kale Pakouriane 137

Basil, magistros 63 Basil, nobelissimos 138, 206n30 Basil, protospatharios 137 Basil, satrap of Bulgaria and monk 82, 103–4, 137 Basilakes, Nikephoros 71, 122, 203n123 Basilakes, Nikephoros, usurper 82, 122, 149 Basileion, village 159 Basilina, mother of Julian 43, 155 Basiliscus, emperor 63, 143 Bath 112 Beckford, William, Vathek 2 Beethoven, Ludwig van 107 Beier, Klaus 33 Belisarius 165 belt, chastity 28 Berengar of Lombardy 117 Berlin 32 Bertolucci, Bernardo, The Last Emperor 8 Betis, governor of Gaza 21 Birk, Joshua 177n58 boar, wild 31 Boilas, Basil, priest 138 Bologna 32 Bombay 13 Bombay Dreams 2 Bonch-Bruevich, Vladimir 24 Born Eunuchs 13 Bosch, Francisco 17 Botaneiates, Nikephoros III 56, 63, 66, 72, 81, 82, 104, 113, 119, 152, 153, 159, 164, 167 Boulhol, Pascal 100–2 Bouninos, Constantine, priest 141 Briant, Pierre 20, 22, 22–3, 101 Bringas, Joseph 61, 65, 103, 105, 152, 163, 168 Brison, eunuch of Eudoxia 138 Browe, Peter 18 Bryennios, Nikephoros 104, 105, 106, 149 Burton, Richard, Arabian Nights 17 Bury, J.B. 59 Calabria 170 Callias 8 Calligonus, grand chamberlain of Valentinian II 138 Callinicus, grand chamberlain of Justinian I 40–1, 44, 107, 122, 139; icon of 112 Calopodius, chamberlain 80, 139 Calopodius, oikonomos of Hagia Sophia 139 Calopodius, primicerius 139

230

I NDEX

Calopodius, primicerius, fosters boy 139, 187n135 Calotychius, cubicularius of Theodora 139 Cambyses 46 Cameron, Averil 63–4 Caracalla 49 Cardigan, in Wales 2 Carthage 10, 165 carzimasians 31, 61, 117 Casanova, Memoirs of 17, 182n74 castrati 1, 2, 3, 11–12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 44, 64–5, 66, 75, 92, 107, 111, 112, 122, 129, 176n25, 187n122, 193n96, 196n72, 199n153, 200n2; eunuchs as singers in Byzantium 19, 27, 68, 76, 117, 122, 128; papal choir 11, 12 castration 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26–35, 40, 43, 45, 51, 52, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68–9, 69–70, 71, 72, 74–5, 78, 100, 101, 107, 108, 115, 116, 129, 193n93, 196n72, 196–7n73, 203n123; chemical 28, 29, 31, 35; circumcision 196–7n73; for medical reasons 29, 31, 70, 72, 74; mystical 78, 100, 107; operation 29–30; physical effects 32–4; as punishment 7, 11, 28, 31, 32, 70; vasectomy 18, 172n15, 182n77 Castrato – In Search of a Lost Voice 3 castrensis sacri palatii 41, 42, 100–1 Catterick 1, 2, 3 Catullus 35 Chalcedon, council of 166 Chamaretos, koubikoularios 139 chamberlain/s, 27, 44, 59, 79, 80, 82, 103, 104, 106, 120, 121; cubicularius/ cubicularii 10, 21, 36, 40, 41, 42, 48, 53, 63, 73, 100, 101, 102; praepositus sacri cubiculi (grand chamberlain) 4, 10, 18, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 58, 60, 80, 96, 99, 100, 101, 112; koitonites 56, 62, 77; koubikoularios 57, 61, 100 Chance, Michael 3 Charlemagne 115, 144, 155 Charles of Anjou 122 Cheney, Victor T. 18, 28 Cheynet, Jean-Claude 63 Chinese empire 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 43, 45, 52; Ming dynasty 8, 19, 45, 47; Qing dynasty 8; Shang dynasty 8 Chitty, Derwas J. 75 Choirosphaktes, Leo 103, 165 Choniates, Michael 121

Choniates, Niketas 120, 121 Chresimos, eunuch, owned a house in Constantinople 140 Christ, Jesus 10, 23, 69, 77 Christianity 10, 11, 12, 19, 23, 27, 32, 37, 40, 48, 63, 64, 68–82, 100–1, 105, 106–7, 111, 116, 121–2, 123, 124, 128, 129 Christopher, patrikios 116, 140 Christopher, protovestiarios 81, 140 Chrysaphius, spatharius 40, 41, 44, 47, 140 Chrysostom, John 72, 113, 114, 138, 146, 171; manuscript of homilies of (Coislin 79) 72, 88–90, 113–14, 115, 152, 164, 199n140 Church, Charlotte 203n115 Cixi, empress dowager 8 Claudian, invectives against Eutropius 38, 42, 46, 96–7, 97, 98, 100 Claudius, Roman emperor 9 Cleopatra VII 2, 9, 14, 20, 51 Cochelin, Isabelle 100–2 comes domorum per Cappadociam 41–2 comes sacrae vestis 42, 58 comparative approach 5, 19, 25, 48, 50, 128–9, 129, 130, 173n26 Constable, Giles 125 Constans I 37, 42 Constans II 70, 135, 161 Constantina, wife of Maurice 156, 165; daughters of 165 Constantine I, the Great 3, 15, 37, 38, 45, 50, 64, 146 Constantine III 162 Constantine IV 70, 135 Constantine V 115, 159, 168 Constantine VI 54, 115, 144, 155, 166 Constantine VII 20, 31, 55, 57, 61, 65, 66, 80, 82, 103, 115, 117, 163, 164, 166, 169; Book of Ceremonies 57, 190n24 Constantine VIII 62, 65, 81, 103, 104, 145, 156, 158, 159, 167 Constantine, attendant of Eirene Doukaina 121, 140 Constantine, nephew of John the orphanotrophos 65–6 Constantine, nobelissimos, brother of John the orphanotrophos 62, 65, 141, 193–4n113 Constantine, notary 138, 206n30 Constantine the Paphlagonian 20, 45, 55, 61, 63, 66, 81, 110, 117, 142, 164, 205n183; sister of 66, 142

231

I NDEX

Constantine, patrikios 65 Constantine, proedros 80, 114–15, 142; pendant of 80, 114–15, 142 Constantine, protospatharios, brother of Leo the sakellarios 65, 80, 95, 113, 154 Constantine the Rhodian 169 Constantine the Saracen 61, 104, 142 Constantine, son of Leo V, castrated 140 Constantine, usurper 42 Constantinople 1, 3, 10, 26, 29, 38, 40, 41, 45, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 80, 82, 100, 105, 106, 110, 112, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 140, 141, 157, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171; bath at the Forum of the Bull 160; Blachernai palace 121; Elephantine palace 171; Hagia Sophia 106, 107, 112, 122, 123, 139, 162, 168; Holy Apostles, church of 71, 141, 159; Theotokos Amolyntos, church of 162; Theotokos Eleousa, church of 138; Theotokos tou Eukteriou, church of 141 Constantius II 14–15, 16, 20, 36–7, 39, 41, 42, 44, 47, 51, 71, 79, 96, 100, 102, 126, 135, 137, 146, 154 Corbiau, Gérard, Farinelli, Il Castrato 2, 12 Corippus, panegyrics on Justin II, 101, 107 Cosmas, abbot of lavra of Pharon, eunuch 72, 195n40 Cosmas, chamberlain 142 Cosmas, spatharius and grand chamberlain 142 Ctesias, 8, 20, 22, 44, 46; Persica 46 cubicularius/cubicularii: see chamberlain/s Curtius Rufus, Quintus 16, 121 Cybele 1, 10, 68–9, 107 Cylaces, prefect of the Armenians, eunuch 97 Cyprus 123, 146, 158 Cyriacus, St, church of 80, 81 Cyril, bishop of Alexandria 164 Cyril of Scythopolis 72 Cyrus the Great 8, 43–4, 100 dai ma 30 Daily Mail, The 1 Daimonitzes, horse 158 Dalassene, Anna 120, 122, 125, 145, 149, 195n47 Dalassenos, Constantine 62, 104 Damianos, droungarios of the watch 143 Damianos, parakoimomenos 59, 60, 143

Damietta 55 Daniel, chamberlain 143 Daniel, prophet 207n46 Daniel the Stylite 80, 139, 143, 148 Dara 165 Darius II 44 Darius III 9, 16 de Bailleul, Roussel 105, 154 de Balzac, Honoré, Sarrasine 2 de Nogent, Guibert 61 Deinas, keeper of perfume shop, selfcastrate 28 Dekapolitissa, Eudokia, wife of Michael III 150 Demetrios, brother of Theophylact of Ochrid 65, 78, 98, 108, 143 Denis, St, feast of 27, 117 Deuterius, chief chamberlain of Honorius 143 deuteros of the great palace 58 Devi, Asha, mayor of Gorakpur 13 Dialogue of Palladius about the Life of John Chrysostom 71 Diner, Helen 173n19 Diocletian 14, 37, 48, 49, 49–50, 51, 71, 73, 79 Diogenes, Constantine 161 Diogenes, Romanos IV 56, 63, 153, 158 Dionysius, naval officer of Mithridates VI, eunuch 9 Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria 164 doge, of Venice 115 domestikos 59, 67; domestic of the scholai 59, 62 Domitian 9, 14, 29 Donatus, Aelius 45 Dorotheus, presbyter in Antioch 71, 143 Dorotheus, worked in imperial palace under Diocletian 73 Dorus, eunuch in Terence’s The Eunuch 43 Doukaina, Eirene 78, 121, 125, 156 Doukas, Constantine X 56, 153, 158 Doukas, John, Caesar 105, 154 Doukas, John, grandson of John Doukas 105, 154 Doukas, Michael VII 56, 63, 82, 113, 152, 158–9 Doukas, Michael, grandson of John Doukas 105, 154 Doukas, Stephen, son of Constantine Doukas 167 doux 56, 62, 63, 65, 120; megas doux 81, 122

232

I NDEX

Dragaš, Helena, wife of Manuel II Palaiologos 151 dress, of eunuchs 109, 110–1, 112, 113, 114, 116 droungarios of the fleet 61, 120; grand droungarios of the fleet 63; megas droungarios 81, 122 Drypetina, daughter of Mithridates VI 99 Dublin 12 Dumitrescu, Carmen-Laura 113, 114 Dunlap, James 4, 18, 60 Dura-Europos 23–4 Earinus, cupbearer of Domitian 9 Edinburgh 12, 28 Egypt 8, 9, 28, 46, 55, 155 Eirene, empress 1, 54–5, 63, 65, 81, 103, 115, 149, 153, 155, 160, 166, 169 Eleutherios, koubikoularios, exarch of Italy 144 Eleutherius, cubicularius 101 Elijah, tribune 144 Elissaios, envoy 115, 144, 155 Elpidios, rebel 169 Engelstein, Laura 20, 24, 111 Eonopolites, Andronikos 122, 123, 135 eparch 59, 121, 191n33 Ephesus 9, 26; council of 164 Epiphania, daughter of Heraclius 162, 168 Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 44, 98, 102, 198n129 Epirus 122 Epstein, Ann Wharton 120 Ergodotes, eunuch of Constantine VIII 104, 144 Eucherius, son of Stilicho 42 Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II 76, 146 Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius 42, 138, 146 Eugenius, palace eunuch 144 Eulabes, Symeon 168 Eumenes, nephew of Philetaerus Attalid dynast 46 Eunomians 198–9n129 Eunuch Archive, The 13 eunuchs: Assyrian 7–8, 19, 22, 23, 83; Byzantine 1, 3–6, 10–1, 18–19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54–67, 68, 70–82, 98–9, 102–118, 119–127, 128–30; Byzantine, as patrons 80–1, 112–15; Chinese 2, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 30, 43, 45, 45–6, 47, 48, 52, 61, 93, 110; Hellenistic 9, 11, 16–17, 20, 21, 27; Hittite 23; Islamic 11, 19, 22, 27, 43, 44, 44–5,

45, 46, 47, 50–1, 52, 108, 115; as mediators 49, 50–1, 106, 122; Norman 11, 19, 115; Ottoman 2, 11, 15–16, 19, 43, 44–5, 91, 110, 126, 130, 182n71; Persian 8–9, 15, 16, 20, 22, 22–3, 51, 73, 84, 100, 101, 108, 186n93, 201n51; Roman and late Roman 9–10, 14–15, 16, 18–19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 31–2, 36–53, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71–4, 79–80, 96–8, 99–102; terminology for 22–3, 23, 27, 31, 44, 99, 102, 172n10, 186n95, 207n46; views of/attitudes to 34–5, 39, 43–4, 49, 50, 57, 74–9, 96–118, 124, 129; visual representations of 23–4, 24–5, 72, 101, 111, 112–15, 179n125, 179n126 eunuchs, anonymous: archbishop of Thessalonike 71; of Athanasia 197n101; of bedchamber under Alexios III Angelos 121; bishop of Bulgarian Edessa 71; bishop of Ephesus 71; bishop of Kyzikos 71; bishop of Leukas 70, 71, 116; bishop of Petra 71; bishop of Pydna 71; bitten by snake 103, 124; chamberlain who attacked Saracens 103, 104; in charge of bedchamber of Alexios I Komnenos 121; commander under Andronikos I Komnenos 121;commanders of Nikephoros II Phokas 116; debauched 78, 109; distinguished in reign of Alexios III Angelos 121, 191n33; doorkeeper of Athenian Callias 8; on embassy with Leo Choirosphaktes 103; envoy to Kassianos 122; envoys to west 115; escorts of Liudprand 117; evil chief at court 101; Gallic 187n117; guardians of forests reserved for imperial hunts 121; of Maria Argyropoula 115; of Maria Komnene 121; monk attached to Alexios I Komnenos 72; monk travelling with young girl 77; of Panthea 100; on ship of Alexios III Angelos 121; skeleton of 1; teacher of Anna Komnene 121; tutor of grandson of Caesar John Doukas 105, 154; of wife of Hormisdas 186n93 Eunuchs, Channel 4 documentary 13 Euphratas 40, 46, 144; nephew of 46 Eupraxius, eunuch of imperial bedchamber 144 Euripides, Orestes 20 Eusebia, wife of Constantius II 43 Eusebius of Caesarea 71

233

I NDEX

Eusebius, grand chamberlain of Constantius II 10, 21, 36, 36–7, 39, 42, 44, 79, 96, 100, 145 Eusebius, grand chamberlain of Honorius 145, 168 Eustathios, strategos of Calabria 145 Eustochium 43 Eustolia 71, 154 Eustrates and John, donors, image of 205n165 Eustratios, abbot of monastery of Agauroi 73 Eustratios, grand hetaireiarch 145 Eutherius, grand chamberlain of Julian 37, 39, 42, 99, 100, 101, 146 Euthymius, monk in Palestine 75, 76, 146 Eutropius, grand chamberlain of Arcadius 10, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 65, 96–7, 100, 112, 146; sister/spouse of 46; statues of 112 Eutropius, monk 33, 79, 98 Eutyches, abbot 47 Eutychios, patrikios and exarch of Italy 146 Farinelli, castrato 12, 25, 32, 44, 66, 92, 112, 193n96; grave of in Bologna 32; portrait of by Jacopo Amigoni 25, 92 Favorinus of Arles 31, 32, 49, 50 Ferdinand VI, king of Spain 112 Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople 164 Forbidden City 8 Finucci, Valeria 19 Frisch, Shelley L. 18 Fulcher of Chartres, Deeds of the Franks on their Pilgrimage to Jerusalem 117, 122 Gabras, Gregory 121, 156 Gabriel, monk 76, 146 Gainsborough, Thomas 112 Galate, in Paphlagonia 168 Galerius, Caesar 48, 50 Galesion, Mt 73, 77, 167 galli 10, 23, 27, 32, 68–9; gallus 1, 35 Gallus, Caesar 37, 39 Garidas, Eustratios, patriarch of Constantinople 70, 72, 120, 122, 145 Gaul 45 Gaul, Niels 120, 123, 124, 125, 151, 156 Gavalas, John, minister of Anne of Savoy 207n48 Gaza 21

gender/gender identity 3, 4, 6, 13, 16, 19, 21, 25, 27–8, 31, 34–5, 49, 50–1, 52, 75, 79, 96, 97–8, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105, 108, 109–11, 114, 116, 117, 118, 129; third gender 98, 99, 109–11, 118, 129 George the barbarian 61, 147 George, brother of John the orphanotrophos 62, 65, 147 Germanos, patriarch of Constantinople 70–1, 71, 74; image of in church of St Nicholas of the Roof at Kakopetria on Cyprus 70–1; as metropolitan of Kyzikos 71 Germanus of Auxerre 134 Germany 33 Gérôme, Jean-Léon 2 Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 14–15, 16 Gisela, daughter of Pepin 115, 168 Gongylios, Anastasios 61, 135 Gongylios, Constantine 61, 103, 141 Good, Deirdre 198n103 Gordian III 38 Gorgonius, chamberlain of Gallus Caesar 37, 147 Gorgonius, worked in imperial palace under Diocletian 73 grapheus, monk 89, 113–14, 115 Gratian 42 Gratissimus, praepositus 80, 81, 147 Grayson, Kirk 19, 22 Greece/Greeks, ancient 8, 15, 20, 22–3, 28, 34–5, 43, 101 Gregoras, Nikephoros 71, 74, 103, 123, 124, 151 Gregorios, eparch 59, 148 Gregory, protospatharios and pingernes 170 Gregory of Tours 29 Guardian, The 1, 2–3 Guiducci, Gian Claudio, and Sacchi, Franco, American Eunuchs 13 Guilland, Rodolphe 4, 18, 59, 71, 73, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127 Guyot, Peter 19, 39 Hadrian 49, 170 Hadwig, daughter of Otto I 115 Hall, Edith 15, 121 Halotus, food-taster of Claudius 9 Handel, George Frideric 3; Handel House Museum 3

234

I NDEX

harem 2, 15, 16, 17, 19, 43, 45, 48, 50; eunuchs and imperial/royal women 9, 52, 108, 123, 184n30, 189n4 Harris, Christopher, Memoirs of a Byzantine Eunuch 1 Hawkins, David 23 Heaven’s Gate cult 13 Helen of Troy 21 Heliodorus, Aethiopica 186n93 Heliodorus, grand chamberlain 178n77 Heliogabalus 38, 51 Helladicus, Paul 33, 79, 97–8 Helladikos, Niketas, protovestiarios and papias 160 Hellanicus 7 Heloise 11, 28 Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus 71 Heraclides Ponticus, On Enjoyment 28 Heraclius, chamberlain of Valentinian III 42, 148 Heraclius, emperor 144, 154, 162, 169 Heraclius, son of Heraclius 162 Hermias of Atarneus 46 183n93 Hermotimus, eunuch of Xerxes 8–9, 20, 26, 43 Herodotus 8, 8–9, 20, 26, 43, 44, 47, 100 Herrin, Judith 63–4 hetaireiarch, grand 61 Hierotheos, abbot of monastery of St Lazaros in Constantinople 196n52 hijras 2, 3, 12–13, 16, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 29–30, 32, 34, 44, 68, 69, 111, 129, 183n101, 204n138 Hilarion, praepositus, statue of 112 Hilarius, imperial eunuch 148 Hinduism 12, 68 Historia Augusta 37–8, 39, 40, 50, 51, 97, 98 Honoria, sister of Valentinian III 148 Honorius 38, 41, 42, 145, 168 Hopkins, Keith 4, 5, 18, 48–9, 49–50, 51 Hornblower, Simon 20 Humana, Charles, The Keeper of the Bed: The Story of the Eunuch 17 Humbert, cardinal 70 Hutchison, Joseph 93, 112 Hyacinthus, eunuch of Honoria 148 Hylasius, spatharius 148 Hypatius, monastery of 171; coffin of 171 Iberia 165 Ignatios, koitonites 149 Ignatios, presbyter 148

Ignatios, spiritual father of Alexios I Komnenos 195n47 Ignatios the Younger, patriarch of Constantinople 21, 70, 72, 74, 79, 106, 112, 148; Life of 106; mosaic of in Hagia Sophia 70, 87, 112; see also Niketas, son of Michael I Independent, The 16 India 2, 3, 11, 12 Ingres, Jean Auguste Dominique 2 inkstand, keeper of imperial 55 intersex 3, 31–2, 71, 194n5; Reifenstein’s syndrome 31 Ioannikios, clergyman 149 Ioannikios, monk 149, 195n47 Ionopolites, John, parakoimomenos 121, 150 Isidore of Pelusium 161 Islam/muslims 11, 12, 19, 26, 64, 68, 115, 115–16, 126, 194n1 Istanbul 11 Ivanko, Alexios 121 Izabates 46 Jabbar 191n48 Jaffrey, Zia 24 Jahiz 61, 63 Janin, Raymond 73 Japan 53 Jay, Jennifer 19, 45–6 Jerome 43 John, abbot in Egypt, eunuch 72 John, abbot of monastery of Martyrius and abbot of New Church 72 John the Almsgiver, patriarch of Alexandria 106 John the Baptist, relic of head of 155 John, bishop of Heraclea, eunuch 71, 74, 79, 103, 123, 124, 151; Life of by Nikephoros Gregoras 124 John, brother of Rusticus the sacellarius 46 John, chamberlain and cleric and monk, eunuch 82, 150 John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints 101 John the Faster, 72, 74, 122, 151; encomium of by Nikephoros Kallistos 74 John, godfather of Peter the Iberian 47, 149 John, grand chamberlain, eunuch detective 1 John, megas doux, eunuch 81, 122, 150

235

I NDEX

John, metropolitan of Side 63, 71, 82, 113, 152, 158, 204n155 John, mystikos, eunuch 121, 150 John the orphanotrophos 46, 56, 61, 62, 65, 65–6, 66, 81, 82, 103, 104, 105, 106, 151, 165 John, ostiarios 193n109 John the Philosopher 104–5, 151 John, praipositos 150 John, praipositos, secretary of Michael Attaleiates 77 John, proedros and parakoimomenos 150 John, protovestiarios 66, 104, 119, 125, 152 John, sakellarios 149 John, spiritual father of Theodora Palaiologina 151 John and Theodore, chamberlains 46, 149, 168 Johns, Jeremy 19 Jones, A.H.M. 64, 102 Jordanes, general 142, 156 Josephus 9 Jovian 162 Jubayr, Ibn 52 Julian 32, 37, 39, 42, 43, 52, 96, 99, 100, 145, 146, 155, 170 Justin I 40, 80, 157 Justin II 41, 73, 101 Justin Martyr 10 Justinian I 1, 23, 28, 31, 40–1, 41, 44, 46, 64, 78, 101, 112, 139, 144, 149, 164, 165, 168 Justinian II 54, 166 Juvenal 28, 33 Ka’ba 11 Kallikrenites, John 151, 156 Kallikrenites, Michael 122, 151, 156, 207n46 Kalokyros, koitonites 152 Kamani, Hittite prince 179n106 Kamaterissa Doukaina, Euphrosyne 121 Kantakouzene, Theodora, daughter of John VI Kantakouzenos 123 Kantakouzene, Theodora, mother of John VI Kantakouzenos 122 Kantakouzenos, John VI 122, 123, 125, 126 Kantakouzenos, John 121, 171 Karbonopsina, Zoe 55, 61, 63, 81 Karvas, servant of Andronikos II Palaiologos 123, 152 Kassianos, grand primikerios 122

Kazhdan, A.P. 120, 125 Kedrenos, chronicler 62, 64, 103, 153 Kekaumenos 105–6 Keroularios, Michael, patriarch of Constantinople 70 Khatzes, eunuch of Orhan 126 Kilidj Arslan, Seljuk sultan of Ikonion 120, 122, 166, 171 Kinnamos, John 120 Kinnamos, Manuel, minister of Anne of Savoy 207n48 kinship (blood and fictive), eunuchs and 46–7, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 63–4, 64–5, 65–6, 70, 71, 74, 78, 79, 82, 98, 113, 123, 124, 128, 129, 147, 151, 157, 164, 165, 187n119, 187n122, 193n99, 206n10 koitonites: see chamberlain/s Kombaphis 46 Komnene, Anna 120, 121, 126, 149; Alexiad of 126 Komnene, Maria, daughter of Constantine Angelos and Theodora Komnene 121 Komnene, Maria, daughter of Manuel I Komnenos 120–1, 163 Komnene, Theodora 121 Komnenoi, dynasty of 119, 119–20, 121, 123, 124–5 Komnenos, Alexios I 61, 63, 72, 76, 80, 82, 104, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 145, 149, 151, 156, 167 Komnenos, Alexios II 120, 121, 171 Komnenos, Andronikos I 120, 123, 125, 126, 127 Komnenos, Isaac I 66, 169 Komnenos, Isaac, sebastokrator, 76 Komnenos, John II, son of Alexios I Komnenos 120, 123, 127, 150 Komnenos, Manuel I, son of John II Komnenos 27, 63, 117, 120, 122, 125, 127, 163, 166, 171 Komnenos Angelos, Michael 123, 152 Konstaes, sakellarios 155 koubikoularios: see chamberlain/s Krateros, Theodore 63, 81, 105, 109, 169; Krateroi 63 Kydoniates, Leo, servant of Eudokia Makrembolitissa 153 Kyminianos, Eustathios 63, 120, 125, 126, 145 Lactantius 37, 50 Laskarids 125 Latros, Mt 72, 159

236

I NDEX

Latyshev, Nikifor Petrovich 24 Lauricius, chamberlain 152–3 Lausus, grand chamberlain 40, 153 Lazaros, St, monk 73, 77, 167 Lazica 149 Lecky, William 4 legislation 28, 29, 41, 45, 46–7, 56, 64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 98, 108, 111, 198–9n129 Leichoudes, Constantine 71, 150 Lekapena, Helena 65 Lekapenos, Basil, parakoimomenos 55–6, 60, 62, 65, 66, 80, 81, 103, 105, 106, 114, 138, 180n23, 190n24, 205n82; and Limburg reliquary 80, 114; monastery of St Basil 81 Lekapenos, Romanos I 55, 65, 160, 169, 170, 205n181 Lekapenos, Romanos, son of Stephen Lekapenos 163; house of 163 Lekapenos, Stephen 163 Lekapenos, Theophylact, patriarch of Constantinople 71, 171, 205n181 Lemerle, Paul 124–5 Leo I 45, 64, 147, 148 Leo IV 80, 115, 168 Leo V 28, 74, 170; sons of, castrated 140 Leo VI 29, 44, 46, 55, 57, 66, 73, 76–7, 81, 111, 152, 157, 160, 163, 164, 165, 193n107, 193n111, 193n112 Leo XIII, pope 12 Leo, bishop of Nicaea in Thrace 71, 153 Leo, brother of Aetios 63, 65 Leo the Deacon 103, 105, 106, 202n69 Leo, patrikios and sakellarios 134 Leo, protovestiarios 193n109 Leo, sakellarios 23, 25, 35, 65, 80, 94, 112–13, 114, 153–4 Leo of Sinope 63, 153 Leo, strategos of Melitene 167 Leo the Tripolite 163 Leo Bible 23, 25, 35, 65, 80, 94, 95, 112–13, 153–4 Leontakios, tutor of grandson of Caesar John Doukas 105, 154 Leontios, abbot of Stoudite monastery 154 Leontios of Neapolis, Life of John the Almsgiver 77, 106 Leontios, sakellarios 63, 154 Leontius, cleric and bishop of Antioch 71, 154 Leontius Scholasticus, epigram on Callinicus 40, 41, 101 Lesbos 63, 151, 171

Lianying, Li 8 Libanius 37, 39 Liberius, pope 79, 148 Licinius 37 Life of Antony the Younger 73 Life of Melania the Younger 100 Limburg reliquary 80, 114 Lisbon 12 Liudprand of Cremona 31, 61, 70, 74–5, 116–17, 166; Antapodosis 117; De Legatione 116, 117 Livistros and Rhodamne 124 Lloyd Webber, Andrew 2 logothete of the drome 54, 55, 56, 59, 63 London 12 Long, Jacqueline 46 Louis VII, king of France 27, 117 Lowry, Heath 126 Lysimachus, Hellenistic king 35, 44 Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople 72, 154 Macrobius, palace eunuch 154 Madina, tomb of Prophet at 11, 19, 194n1 Madrid 12 Magdalino, Paul 61, 64, 169, 203n123 Makar, abbot of monastery of St Nicholas 95, 113 Makrembolitissa, Eudokia 153, 158 Malalas 28, 40, 41 Mamalos, primikerios 155 Mamas, nephew of Sophronius 155, 188n137 Mamertinus, Claudius 31–2, 39, 98 Manasses, Constantine, Aristandros and Kallithea, 103, 124 Mango, Cyril 107 Maniaci, Michael 172n16 Maniakes, George 156, 167 Mantzikert, battle of 126 Manuel, commander, eunuch 155 Manuel, droungarios of the watch 155 Manuel, general 116 Marcellinus, Ammianus 15, 20, 21, 35, 36–7, 41, 51, 96, 97, 99–100, 100, 102, 103, 126, 145, 146 Mardian, eunuch of Cleopatra VII 2, 9 Mardonius, palace eunuch 155 Mardonius, tutor of Julian and Julian’s mother 39, 40, 155 Margarites, palace eunuch of Maurice 156 Maria of Alania 113 Maria of Antioch 121, 163

237

I NDEX

Maria, sister of John the orphanotrophos 62 Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry 100–1 Marmon, Shaun 19, 50–1 marriage, eunuchs and 17, 45–6, 66, 111, 187n119, 187n122 Martial 182n89 Martin, pope 148 Martina, wife of Heraclius 162 martyrs, eunuch 73–4, 79–80, 100; Azades 73, 74; Calocerus and Parthenius 73; Domninus 73; Eleutherius 101; Hyacinthus 74; Indes 74, 100, 101; John and Paul 73; Largus and Smaragdus 73; Nereus and Achilleus 73; Ousthazades 73, 74; Protus and Hyacinthus, 73, 74; Theodore 74 master of the augusta’s table 58 master of the emperor’s table 58 Masudi 61, 115 Matthew, Gospel of 10, 12, 31, 69; eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven 10, 23, 69, 77 Maunsell, Dora, married castrato Tenducci 176n23 Maurice 60, 156, 165, 166; sons of 166 Maximus, Magnus 39, 42 Mayer, Eric 1 Mazarin, cardinal 44 Mecca 11, 194n1 Melani, Atto, castrato 44 Melito, bishop of Sardis 195n34 Mertzianes, eunuch of Orhan 126 Metastasio, Pietro 112 Methodios, patriarch of Constantinople 71, 78 Metrios, father of Constantine the Paphlagonian 61 Menophilus, eunuch of Mithridates VI 99, 100 Michael I 28, 74, 148, 170 Michael II 55, 170 Michael III 21, 55, 59, 61, 106, 149, 150, 161, 163, 170 Michael IV 46, 56, 62, 65, 71, 81, 106, 159 Michael V 28, 46, 56, 61, 62, 65 Michael VI 65, 152, 169 Michael, chamberlain 156 Michael, doctor, eunuch 121, 156 Michael, koitonites 156 Michael, protovestiarios, brother of Niketas the patrikios, 65, 156–7, 160, 205n178

Michael, in retinue of Eirene Doukaina and tutor to Gregory Gabras 121, 156 Milan 42 Millant, Richard, Les eunuques à travers les âges 17, 31, 34 Milutin, son of Stefan I Uroš 116, 123 Miracles of St Artemios 29 Misael, chamberlain 79–80, 149, 157, 168 Misael and Theodore, chamberlains 101 Mithridates VI, king of Pontus 9, 20, 99 monasteries, for eunuchs 72–3, 76–7 monastery: of Agauroi on Mt Olympos 73; of Anastasis on Mt Galesion 76, 167; of archbishop Elias near Jericho 73, 77; of Asekretis in Pythia 152; attached to church of St Cyriacus 81, 147; of Christopher the protovestiarios 81; coenobium of Theodosius 76, 77; of Damianos 143; of eunuchs near Jericho 72–3, 77; of eunuchs on Mt Olympos 73; for eunuchs in Thessalonike 73, 76, 167; Great Lavra in Jerusalem 72; hebdomon 81, 159; in house of Michael Attaleiates in Constantinople 73, 77, 106, 109; of Hypatius 171; of Katharoi 73, 80, 157; of Martyrius 72; of Monobata 81, 151; of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira 76; Myrelaion 169; of Narses in Bithynia 157; of Nea Mone on Chios 141; Pantokrator, of John II Komnenos 121, 150; of Petra in Constantinople 72, 122, 151; of Protasius and Gervasius 153; of St Basil 81; of St John Stoudios 154, 157, 159, 168; of St Lazaros 73, 76–7; of St Mamas 72, 143, 168; of St Nicholas 65, 80, 113, 153–4; of St Phokas 204n141; of St Stephen protomartyr 76, 146; of Samonas, ta Speira in Damatry 81; of Saviour on Mt Galesion 73, 76, 77, 167; of Saviour of the Pharos 81, 122, 150; of Solomon at Carthage 165; of Soumela 207n49; of Symeon the protovestiarios on Mt Olympos 81; of Theophylact the protospatharios 170; of Theotokos Dekapolitissa 66; of Xenophon on Mt Athos 73, 75, 167 monasticism/monks 33, 47, 63, 72–3, 75–8, 80–1, 82, 98, 106, 108–9, 111, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123 Money, Dr John 29 Monomachos, Constantine IX 56, 61, 62, 75, 76, 81, 82, 104, 105, 150, 151, 158, 159, 167

238

I NDEX

Montesquieu, Persian Letters 17 Monteverdi, Orfeo 11 Moreschi, Alessandro 12, 107 Moschus, John, Spiritual Meadow 72 Moscow 12 Moselle, magistros 159 Mourtzouphlos, Alexios V 121 Mousikos, slave of Stylianos Zaoutzes 157 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 112 Mullett, Margaret 108 Muqaddasi 70, 194n12 Mycale 72, 159 mystikos 121 Nanda, Serena 20, 24, 29, 34, 69, 111 Naples 12 Napoleon 31 Narratio de Sancta Sophia 106, 133 Narses, cubicularius 73, 80 Narses, general of Justinian I 35, 40, 102, 121, 157, 202n69 Narses of Smyrna, bishop of Ascalon 63, 72, 157; son of Thomas 157 Narses, spatharius of Justin II 101, 107, 157 Nasir, Abbasid caliph 52 Neophytos, monk 123, 158 Nero 9, 27 New York Times, The 3 Nicaea 122, 125, 152; council of 10, 69–70, 74 Nicholas, eunuch of Kale Pakouriane 158 Nicholas, eunuch of Theodora mother of Michael III 158 Nicholas, parakoimomenos and proedros 158 Nicholas, patrikios, eunuch of John I Tzimiskes 158 Nicholas, St 65, 71, 95, 113 Nicolini, castrato 17 Nicomedia 73, 105, 123 Nikephoritzes 11, 56, 62, 63, 81, 105–6, 119, 125, 152, 158–9 Nikephoros I 54, 63 Nikephoros, bishop of Miletos 70, 71, 72, 74, 110, 159; Life of 70, 74; parents Eustathios and Maria 159 Nikephoros, parakoimomenos 120, 159 Nikephoros, proedros and protovestiarios 81, 159 Nikephoros, raiktor 81, 104, 105, 159 Nikerites, Leo 63, 80, 120, 125, 126, 153, 193n99, 206n10 Niketas, bishop of Chonai 122, 160

Niketas, brother of John the orphanotrophos 62 Niketas, epi tes trapezes 160 Niketas of Mistheia 160 Niketas, patrikios 65, 156–7, 160, 205n178 Niketas, patrikios, iconophile saint 63, 74, 79, 81, 160 Niketas of Pisidia 62, 103, 161 Niketas the Slav, patriarch of Constantinople 70, 71, 159 Niketas, son of Michael I 28, 74; see also Ignatios the Younger Niketas David, the Paphlagonian 196n67, 204n141 nipsistarios 57, 110 nobelissimos 62, 141, 206n30 Nock, Arthur Darby 69 Notitia Dignitatum 41, 42, 59, 60 nunnery, of the Mother of God Kecharitomene 78 nuns, ‘transvestite’ 72, 77, 197n82 Octavian 51 Odo of Deuil 27, 117, 122 Oikonomidès, Nicolas 60 Oinaiotes, George 121, 147 Olympios, koubikoularios and exarch of Italy 161 Olympos, Mt 73, 81, 134, 163 Oneirocriticon of Achmet 107 Orestes, eunuch of Basil II 104, 105, 161 Orhan, emir of Bithynia 123, 126 orientalism 5, 15, 20, 42, 45, 108, 117, 117–18 Origen 10 orphanotrophos 190n20 Osman, father of Orhan 126 ostiarios 57, 193n109 Otes, eunuch 24 Otho 9 Otto I 115, 116, 166 Ottoman empire/Ottoman Turks 2, 3, 11, 15, 19, 43, 52, 110, 119, 125–6, 126, 127, 130 Ousthazades 73, 74 Paches, Antony, bishop of Nicomedia 71, 136 Pachymeres, George 116 Paezon, eunuch of Sejanus 9, 27 Pakouriane, Kale 137, 138, 141, 158 Palaiologina, Anna, daughter of Michael VIII and Theodora 116, 123

239

I NDEX

Palaiologina, Theodora, wife of Michael VIII 116, 123, 151 Palaiologoi, dynasty of 119, 122–3, 124, 125 Palaiologos, Andronikos II 122, 123, 126, 127, 158 Palaiologos, Andronikos III 122, 123 Palaiologos, George 66, 104, 152 Palaiologos, John V 122 Palaiologos, Manuel II 75, 151 Palaiologos, Michael VIII 116, 122, 123 Palaiologos, Michael IX 123, 158 Palladius, Lausiac History 40, 153 Panionius, Chian slave trader 9, 20, 26 Panthea, wife of Abradatas 100 Paphlagonia 61–4, 66, 103, 147, 151, 152, 160, 168, 204n141 Paphlagonian dynasty 125 papias of Daphne 59 papias of the great palace 58 papias of the Magnaura 59 parakoimomenos 21, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 80, 103, 120, 121 Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai 63–4, 112 Paris 11, 31, 44 Passion of Indes and Domna 100, 101 patrikios 54, 55, 58, 63, 65, 74, 79, 80, 81, 103, 110, 110–11, 112, 116 Patterson, Orlando 48–9, 50, 51 Paul, abbot of monastery of St Phokas, uncle of Niketas David 204n141 Paul of Aegina, Epitome of Medicine 30 Paul, koitonites 167 Paul, protos of Mt Athos 76 Paul, sacellarius 161 Pausanias 21 Pediates, Basil, praipositos 138 Pedrolino il Magnifico, in Castradiva 2 Peers, Glenn 107 Peirce, Leslie 19 Pelikan, Evgenii 33 Pentcheva, Bissera 114 Penzer, Norman 15–16, 17, 19, 33, 172n4, 182n71 Pepagomenos, George, megas ekklesiarches of Hagia Sophia 123, 147; brother of, 147 Pepin 115, 168 Pergamum 21, 35, 44, 167 Periander, tyrant of Corinth 177–8n71 Persian empire/Persians 8, 9, 11, 15, 20, 22, 26, 43–4, 44, 48, 51, 73, 98, 108, 129; Achaemenids 8, 22, 22–3; Sassanids 9

Peschel, Enid Rhodes 33 Peschel, Richard E. 33 Pessinus 10 Peter, Bulgarian tsar 28 Peter the Iberian 47, 142, 144, 149, 157 Peter, patriarch of Jerusalem 72 Peter, St 71, 78, 106 Phagitzes, Constantine 62, 141 Pharismanius, palace eunuch 161 Philagrios, sakellarios 162 Philaretos, koubikoularios and chartoularios 162, 168 Philetaerus, Attalid dynast 21–2, 31, 35, 44, 46 Philialetes, eunuch 162 Philips, John Edward 50 Philokales, protovestiarios 56, 162 Philostratus 31 Philotheos, Kletorologion 6, 10–1, 57–60, 110, 111, 112, 123 Philotheos, monk 62 Philoxenites, Constantine, treasurer 121, 141 Phokades 62, 104, 161 Phokas 63, 154; statue of at Rome 165 Phokas, Bardas 103 Phokas, Leo, brother-in-law of Constantine the Paphlagonian 66 Phokas, Nikephoros II 56, 60, 61, 65, 105, 116, 156–7, 160, 161 Phokas, Peter 62, 104, 105, 161 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople 55, 74, 103, 150 photographs, of eunuchs 24, 111, 112, 129, 179n123 pingernes of the augusta 59 pingernes of the emperor 58 Plato, cubicularius 63–4, 112; statue of 63–4, 112 Plautianus, praetorian prefect of Septimius Severus 43 Plautilla, daughter of Plautianus 43 Pliny the Elder 27, 31 Polybius, historian 100 Polyeuktos, patriarch of Constantinople 70, 72, 82, 103, 162 Pompey the Great 9 Pontos 62 Pontus, kingdom of 9, 99 Porpora 12 Potheinus, eunuch of Ptolemy XIII 9 praepositus sacri cubiculi (grand chamberlain): see chamberlain/s

240

I NDEX

praipositos 23, 55, 56, 58, 61, 65, 77, 80, 106, 112, 114 praitor 56 primicerius sacri cubiculi 41, 41 primikerios 58, 100 Priscus, Clutorius 9, 27 Probatai 62 Probatas, George 62, 147 Probatius, court eunuch under Jovian 162 Probinus, servant of Andrew the cubicularius and sacellarius 135 Procopius, historian 26, 40, 45, 102 Procopius, protovestiarios 163 Procopius, usurper 144 Prodromos, the, church of attached to house of Michael Attaleiates 77 proedros 56, 60, 80, 114, 205n162; protoproedros 113 prosopography 130, 133–4; Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire 21; Prosopography of the Byzantine World 21 Prote, island of 140 protospatharios 58, 81, 95, 100, 113 protovestiarios 56, 58, 60, 62, 65, 71, 81, 104, 113, 125, 193n109, 205n178 Psellos, Michael 61, 106 Pseudo-Kodinos, treatise of 123 Psyllos, Basil 121, 138 Pterygeonites, eunuch of Andronikos I Komnenos 120–1, 163 Ptolemies 9, 11 Ptolemy V 100 Ptolemy XIII 9 Ptolemy, lover of eunuch Eutropius 97 Pu-yi, Henry 8 Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II 140 Pythias, niece of Hermias of Atarneus 46 quaestor 59 Raidestos, granary at 159 raiktor 81 Ramesses III, pharaoh, relief at Medinet Habu 28 Rangayan, Sridhar, The Pink Mirror 2 Rauzzini, castrato 93, 112; portrait of by Joseph Hutchison 93, 112 Ravenna 23, 42, 134, 145, 153; church to the martyr Laurentius in 153 Reed, Mary 1 Reimer, Bruce/Brenda 29 Renault, Mary, The Persian Boy 1, 2, 9, 176n20

Rentakios, protovestiarios 163 Rhodanus, grand chamberlain of Valentinian I 163 Rhodophyles, koubikoularios 163 Rice, Anne, Cry to Heaven 1 Richard and Judy 1 Ringrose, Kathryn 4, 5, 6, 50, 51, 59, 78, 96, 98–9, 102, 108, 109, 111, 120, 129 Roger II, of Sicily 11 Romanos II 61, 65, 80, 82, 115, 156 Romanos, son of Bulgarian tsar Peter 28, 163 Roman empire/Romans 9–10, 20, 26, 35, 36–53, 99, 115, 129 Rome 10, 41, 42, 71, 78, 146, 157, 165 Rosselli, John 19 Rotrud, daughter of Charlemagne 115, 144, 155 Rousselle, Aline 32 Rufus, Sempronius 49 Runciman, Sir Steven 4 Ruoyu, Liu 24 Russia 12 Rusticus, sacellarius 46 Ryan, Mark, Castradiva 2 Sabas, monk depicted in manuscript of homilies of John Chrysostom (Coislin 79) 72, 90, 113, 164 Sabas, monk in Palestine 72, 75, 76, 77 sacellarius 35, 40, 42, 46 sakellarios 23, 35, 54, 55, 59, 61, 63, 65, 80, 94, 103, 112, 114, 204n141 Samber, Robert, Eunuchism Display’d 16, 17, 176n25 Samonas 44, 55, 57, 60, 63, 81, 164 Sardis 9, 26 Saturninus, eunuch 164 Saxony 166 Scholasticius, comes and castrensis sacri palatii 164 Scholasticus, palace eunuch 164 Scholastikios, palace eunuch 165 Scholastikios, parakoimomenos and ostiarios 164 Scholl, Andreas 3 Scholten, Helga 18 Scholz, Piotr, Eunuchs and Castrati: A Cultural History 18 seals 60, 61, 133 Seaton, Mr, self-castrate 28 sebastophoros 62 Seda, cubicularius of Theoderic the Ostrogoth 42

241

I NDEX

Sejanus, praetorian prefect 9, 27 Seleucids 9, 11 Sema, village 157, 168 Semiramis 7, 52 Septem 162 Serdica 157 ùerefeddîn, Mukbil, eunuch of Osman 126 Sergios, eunuch of Basil II 104, 165 Severus, Alexander 37–8, 51, 98 Severus of Antioch 144, 157 Severus, Septimius 43 Sewter, E.R.A. 121 sex and sexuality 13, 17, 18, 27, 27–8, 28, 29, 31, 32–4, 43, 49, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 77–9, 96, 97–8, 101, 103, 106, 108–9, 182–3n89, 203n123; homosexuality 2, 17, 19, 28, 75, 103, 203n123; third sex 97, 98 Sgouritzes, eunuch of Zoe the Macedonian 165 Shakespeare, William, Antony and Cleopatra 2, 9 Shapur II 73 Siberia 12 Sicily, 116, 156, 159, 161, 163, 169; Norman kingdom of 11, 19, 115 Sidéris, Georges 101, 107 Simplicia 97, 100 Siniscard, Richard 138, 206n30 Sinope 63, 153 Sinoutis, eunuch ambassador 165, 201n61 Skleros, Bardas 103, 161 Skoptsy 12, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 69, 107, 111, 112, 114, 129, 183n101, 196n72 Skylitzes, chronicler 62, 81, 103, 104–5, 106 slavery/slaves 9, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26–7, 36, 38, 40, 44–5, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 62, 64, 65, 67, 72, 74, 97, 103, 104, 126, 128, 129, 191n50 Smaragdus, chartularius sacri palatii and grand chamberlain and exarch of Italy 165 Smyrna 157 So Graham Norton 205n185 Socrates, church historian 52 Solomon, ambassador to west 115, 117, 166 Solomon, bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia 122, 166 Solomon, general 31, 46, 102, 165; brother of 165; nephews of 46, 165 Sophia, wife of Justin II 135, 157, 166

Sophronius, monk 155 Sozomen, church historian 72 Spain 19, 31, 44, 112, 166, 196–7n73, 205n184 Spandounes, Theodore, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors 208n72 spatharius 40, 42, 101 spatharokoubikoularios 57, 62 Spondyles, Michael 103, 156; Spondylai 192n67 Sporus 9, 27 Statius 9 Staurakios 54, 166 Stavrakas, Spyros 5 Stent, George Carter 17, 30, 175n10 Stephen, megas droungarios 81, 120, 121, 167; see also Symeon the Sanctified Stephen, monk on Mt Galesion 76, 167 Stephen, patriarch of Constantinople and metropolitan of Amasea 70, 71, 166 Stephen, patrikios, father of Michael V 65 Stephen the Pergamene 62, 167 Stephen the Persian 54, 60, 166 Stephen, praepositus of empress Sophia 166 Stephen the Serbian 62 Stephen, son of Basil I 55 Stephen, tutor to sons of Maurice 166 Stethatos, Niketas 62, 74 Stevenson, Walter 49, 50 Stilicho 38, 42, 100, 143 Stone, Oliver, Alexander 2, 17, 176n20 Strabo 21 strategoi 59, 63; strategos autokrator 61, 62 stratopedarch 81, 105 Suda 65, 201n37 Susa 9 Sweetie, hijra in Bombay Dreams 2 Symeon, monk (possibly to be identified with Symeon the Sanctified) 73, 76 Symeon the New Theologian/George 62, 72, 74, 81, 111–12, 168; uncle of 62, 168 Symeon, proedros 167 Symeon, protovestiarios 81 Symeon the Sanctified, abbot of monastery of Xenophon on Mt Athos 73, 75, 76, 81, 120, 121, 149, 167; see also Stephen the megas droungarios Symeon, tsar of Bulgaria 20 Synesios, envoy to Franks 115, 168 Synetos, castrensis sacri palatii 162, 168 Syrian goddess 10

242

I NDEX

Tacitus, historian 9 taktika 190n24 Taranges 126 Tarn, W.W. 16–17 Taron 165 Tarsus 60 Tartary, khan of 12, 200n21 Tauber, Edward 33 Taylor, Gary 18 Tenducci, castrato 112, 176n23 Terence, The Eunuch 2, 43, 45, 52 Terentius, eunuch of Honorius 42, 145, 168 Theoderic, Ostrogothic king of Italy 42 Theodora the Macedonian 63, 150, 155, 158, 160, 169 Theodora, mother of Michael III 55, 158, 170, 196–7n73 Theodora, wife of Justinian I, 23, 85, 139; depiction of in church of San Vitale in Ravenna 23, 85 Theodore, anchorite, eunuch 72 Theodore, literary figure, eunuch 61, 169 Theodore, patrikios 169 Theodore, proedros 169 Theodore, sakellarios 169 Theodore the Stoudite 80–1, 154, 170 Theodore, tutor of Constantine VII 61, 169; brother Symeon 169 Theodoret, koitonites 135 Theodosios, monk 169 Theodosius I 146 Theodosius II 40, 41, 44, 62, 149, 171 Theoktistos 55, 170 Theoktistos, monk 170 Theophanes Continuatus 105, 109, 170 Theophanes, parakoimomenos 80, 170 Theophilos 55, 63, 81, 105, 107, 160, 164, 169 Theophilus, librarian, eunuch 170 Theophylact of Ochrid, In Defence of Eunuchs 6, 27, 29, 33, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 98–9, 99, 108–9, 118, 120, 129, 143 Theophylact, protospatharios 80–1, 170 Theophylact, son of Michael I 28, 74, 148, 170 Thessalonike 73, 76, 78, 82, 122, 157, 163 Thomas the apostle, St, church of in Constantinople 80 Thomas, Lesbian 63, 120, 125, 171 Thomas, primikerios 170 Tiberius, emperor 157 Tigrius, presbyter 72, 171

Timarion 106–7 Toledano, Ehud 110 Trebizond 81, 122, 150 Trier 39 Trimalchio 9 Triwila, grand chamberlain of Theoderic the Ostrogoth 42 Tryphon, eunuch of Mithridates VI 9 Tsai, Shih-shan Henry 16, 19, 45, 47 Tuchel, Susan 18, 19 Turk, dog of Rauzzini 93, 112 typika 75–6, 78, 121, 182n79, 197n79 Tyre, purple dye works at 71, 143 Tzimiskes, John I 56, 75, 76, 103, 105, 158, 161, 163 Tzitas, eunuch 121, 171 Urbicius, praepositus 171 Uroš, Stefan I 116, 123 Ursicinus 36, 37, 41, 97, 145 Valens 37, 102, 144, 155 Valentinian I 37, 42, 102, 163 Valentinian II 42 Valentinian III 42, 46, 148 Valesius 70; Valesians 198n129 Velluti, castrato 193n96 Venice 115, 117, 166 Verdun 31, 61 vestes 65 Vetanos, eunuch in Livistros and Rhodamne 124 Vienna 12 Vision of the Monk Kosmas 106 Wassersug, Richard 3 Weyl Carr, Annemarie 80 Wheatley, Dennis, The Eunuch of Stamboul 172n4 White, Stephen, Modern Day Eunuchs 13 Wille, Reinhard 33 Wittfogel, Karl August 47, 49, 51, 52 Woods, David 39 Wycherley, William, The Country Wife 2 Xenophon, historian 8, 20, 43–4, 44, 47, 100 Xeros, eunuch 171 Xerxes 8, 20 Xylinites, Niketas 62–3, 160 Yahya, al-Ghazzal 196–7n73 Yaoting, Sun 8

243

I NDEX

Yariri, regent and guardian of Hittite prince Kamani 179n106 Yashim, eunuch detective, Ottoman 172n4 Zaoutzes, Stylianos 157 Zeno, emperor 142, 161 Zeno, eunuch in Memoirs of a Byzantine Eunuch 1

Zenonis, empress, wife of Basiliscus 143; lover Armatus 143 Zheng He 8 Zoe the Macedonian 62, 65, 104, 147, 151, 158, 165, 167 Zonaras, chronicler 126

244